LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF 

CALIFOK-.'IA 

SAN  DIEQO 


NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 


BOOKS  BY 
JOHN  HAYNES  HOLMES 

THE    REVOLUTIONARY    FUNCTION    OP 
THE  MODERK  CHURCH 

MARRIAGE  AND  DIVORCE 
Is  DEATH  THE  END? 
NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 


NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

Being  a  Statement  of  Radical  Pacifism  in  terms  of  Force 

versus  Non-Resistance,  with  special  reference  to 

the  Facts  and  Problems  of  the  Great  War 


BY 

JOHN  HAYNES  HOLMES 


NEW  YORK 
DODD,   MEAD  AND  COMPANY 

'1918 


CorvmiGHT,  1916 
BT  DODD.  MEAD  AND  COMPANY.  INC 

First  edition  published  June  8.  191« 
Second  edition  printed  June  10,  1916 
Third  edition  printed  September  »,  1916 
Fourth  edition  printed  December  12,  1916 
Fifth  edition  printed  May  9,  lur< 


TO 

MY    DEAR    FRIENDS    AND   HONOURED    COLLEAGUES 

STEPHEN  S.  WISE 

AND 

FRANK  OLIVER  HALL 

The  one  a  Rabbi  who  perpetuates  the  prophetic 
tradition  of  Israel 

The  other  a  Minister  who  perpetuates  the  apostolic 
tradition  of  Christianity 

Both  wise  teachers  and  brave  exemplars  of  the 
religion  of  Brotherhood 

This  Book  is  humbly  Dedicated 


PREFACE 

i 

WHEN  the  Great  War  burst  upon  the  world  in  August 
1914,  it  was  natural  that  affrighted  and  outraged  men 
should  regard  this  disaster  as  a  final  demonstration  of 
the  failure  of  Judaism,  Christianity,  the  organised  peace 
propaganda,  and  international  socialism.  The  tradi- 
tion of  Israel  reaches  back  to  a  period  antedating  the  ad- 
vent of  Christianity  by  more  than  seven  centuries ;  the 
gospel  of  love,  associated  with  the  name  of  Jesus,  has 
been  known  to  humanity  for  nearly  two  thousand  years  ; 
the  peace  movement,  led  by  able  and  distinguished  men, 
backed  by  abundant  resources,  well-organised  and  per- 
sistently aggressive,  has  had  three  generations  to  im- 
press its  doctrines  upon  the  modern  mind;  and  during 
the  last  half-century  or  so,  we  have  seen  a  massing  of 
the  forces  of  labour,  in  all  countries,  under  the  banner 
of  socialism,  which  seemed  to  constitute  a  sure  protec- 
tion against  war.  And  yet,  when  the  crisis  came,  no  one 
of  these  great  forces  proved  of  any  avail.  The  tide  of 
conflict  swept  across  Europe,  Asia,  Africa,  and  the 
seven  seas  as  swiftly  and  terribly  as  though  no  bul- 
warks had  ever  been  raised  against  it.  What  wonder 

that  men  in  their  disappointment  and  fear,  declared  re- 

vii 


viii  PREFACE 

ligion  a  failure,  the  peace  movement  a  farce,  and 
socialism  an  arrant  sham ! 

That  this  indictment  is  rightly  to  be  levelled  against 
Jews  and  Christians,  pacifists  and  socialists,  is  to  my 
mind  undeniable.  Never  has  humanity  been  called  upon 
to  witness  a  more  tragic  spectacle  than  that  of  the  mil- 
lions of  Germans,  Austrians,  French,  Russians,  English 
—  all  of  them  pledged  in  one  way  or  another  to  the 
cause  of  peace  —  marching  away  to  the  battlefront,  at 
the  first  sound  of  alarm,  not  only  without  protest,  but 
with  enthusiasm.  There  were  some  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians, we  may  well  believe,  who  revolted  inwardly,  if  not 
outwardly,  against  the  call  to  arms ;  there  were  some 
peace  advocates,  we  know,  who  were  distraught  and 
ashamed ;  the  attempt  of  the  socialists,  before  the  decla- 
rations of  war  were  made,  to  stay  the  flood  of  madness 
then  threatening  the  race,  stands  out  as  one  of  the  few 
glorious  episodes  of  the  dreadful  days  of  July  and 
August,  1914.  But  that,  when  the  actual  moment  of 
dread  decision  came,  these  millions  of  religionists,  paci- 
fists, internationalists,  abandoned  their  spiritual  pro- 
fessions and  clung  to  patriotism  as  the  one  sure  passion 
of  their  souls,  is  a  sober  fact.  Everywhere  they  gave 
way  at  the  very  moment  when,  if  ever,  they  should  have 
stood  fast,  and  thus  failed ! 

That  this  failure  of  individuals,  however,  involves  any 
failure  of  the  various  churches  or  movements,  to  which 
these  individuals  had  pledged  allegiance,  is,  to  my  mind, 
the  unfairest  of  charges.  Judaism,  Christianity,  the 
peace  propaganda,  socialism,  a  failure?  When,  let  me 


PREFACE  k 

ask,  has  the  world  ever  put  into  practical  effect,  in  the 
form  of  laws  and  social  institutions,  the  moral  principles 
of  Judaism  or  the  spiritual  ideals  of  Christianity? 
Where  is  there  a  government  which  has  heeded  even  the 
simplest  of  the  recommendations  of  the  modern  peace 
movement,  and  placed  any  genuine  pacifist  in  a  posi- 
tion of  political  responsibility?  To  what  extent  has  so- 
ciety, in  any  of  its  many  fields  of  activity,  ordered  its  re- 
lations upon  the  basis  of  out-and-out  socialism? 
Christianity,  pacifism,  socialism  —  when  and  where  and 
how  have  these  had  any  chance?  All  have  been  pro- 
fessed, but  not  one  has  been  practised.  Lip-service  is 
the  uttermost  of  reverence  which  ever  has  been  paid  to 
them.  Other  forces,  of  a  wholly  different  character, 
have  controlled  the  movements  and  fashioned  the  organ- 
isations of  society  —  and  these  forces  it  is  which  have 
led  us  to  the  horror  of  the  present  cataclysm  of  uni- 
versal disaster.  Monarchical  governments,  founded 
upon  superstitions  of  divine  right,  secret  diplomacies 
which  make  falsehood  a  virtue  and  identify  statesman- 
ship with  deceit,  balances  of  power  determined  by 
immoral  rivalries  for  world  empire  and  dominion,  an 
economic  system  based  upon  exploitation  of  labour  at 
home  and  consumers  abroad,  vast  armaments  of  war 
reared  on  the  specious  pretence  of  maintaining  peace, 
the  barbaric  idea  of  force  as  the  safeguard  of  se- 
curity — 

"  The  heathen  heart  that  puts  its  trust 
In  recking  tube  and  iron  shard, 
All  valiant  dust  that  builds  on  dust, 
And  guarding  calls  not  Thee  to  guard  " — 


x  PREFACE 

these  have  failed !  But  not  those  great  movements  of 
brotherhood,  goodwill,  co-operation,  which  have 
preached  their  message  to  ears  that  would  not  hear, 
and  knocked  for  admittance  at  portals  that  would  not 
open.  This  hour  marks  perhaps  the  hour  of  darkest 
failure  in  all  of  human  history.  But  it  is  the  failure 
not  of  Christianity  but  of  civilised  barbarism,  not  of 
Christ  but  of  Cassar,  not  of  love  but  of  blood  and  iron ! 

n 

And  yet  it  is  in  this  hour  of  universal  ruin,  that  the 
gospel  of  force  is  being  preached  with  a  vigour  which 
has  never  been  known  before !  On  every  side  we  are 
being  told  that,  in  the  world  of  men  as  in  the  world  of 
beasts,  there  is  no  security  save  "  in  tooth  and  claw." 
Books  and  pamphlets  are  pouring  from  the  presses  in 
an  endless  flood,  to  warn  us  of  the  perils  of  "  defense- 
lessness,"  by  which  is  meant  a  reliance  upon  interna- 
tional goodwill  which  scorns  the  mailed  fist  and  the 
clashing  sword,  and  the  need  of  "  preparation,"  by 
which  is  meant  arming  ourselves  to  the  teeth  against 
our  neighbours.  We  have  even  been  called  upon  to 
witness,  during  the  last  few  months,  the  spectacle  of  a 
group  of  men,  gathered  self-consciously  in  Independence 
Hall,  in  the  brave  attempt  to  organise  a  movement  for 
the  establishment  of  peace  by  force!  Obsessed  with 
the  idea  that  the  security  of  the  world  is  threatened  by 
one  nation,  namely  Germany,  and  that  peace  can  be  se- 
cured by  the  destruction  of  one  militaristic  machine, 
namely  the  German  army,  we  forget  that  militarism,  in 


PREFACE  xi 

its  various  political  and  economic  aspects,  is  inwrought 
in  the  very  fibre  of  our  entire  western  civilisation,  and 
finds  embodiment  not  merely  in  one  army  of  one  nation, 
but  in  all  those  vast  armaments  on  land  and  sea  which 
characterise  every  great  power  of  the  modern  world. 
Nay  worse  —  we  forget  that,  in  attempting  to  destroy 
Germany  and  to  protect  ourselves  by  force  against 
the  menace  that  Germany  represents,  we  are  ourselves 
taking  up  her  weapons,  reproducing  her  system,  doing 
her  work.  So  that  humanity  actually  finds  itself  face 
to  face  with  the  very  excellent  probability  that  German 
arms,  in  due  course,  will  be  destroyed,  but  that,  by 
the  very  process  of  victory,  the  German  spirit  will  find 
itself  triumphant  in  France,  England,  Russia,  America. 
Kluck,  Hindenberg,  Mackensen,  destroyed  —  but  Nietz- 
sche, Treitschke,  Bernhardi,  world-conquerors ! 

It  is  this  situation  which  makes  imperative  an  un- 
faltering reaffirmation  of  the  true  gospel  of  peace, 
which  is  none  other  than  the  gospel  of  righteousness 
preached  by  Isaiah,  the  gospel  of  love  proclaimed  by 
Jesus,  the  gospel  of  goodwill  maintained  by  all  the  paci- 
fists of  the  ages,  the  gospel  of  democracy  and  co-oper- 
ation set  forth  by  socialists  everywhere  —  in  one  word, 
the  gospel  of  non-resistance !  In  the  sturm  und  drang 
of  these  terrific  days,  it  is  difficult  for  any  one  mind 
to  state  this  gospel  with  the  poise  and  power  which 
should  characterise  its  utterance.  The  very  haste  made 
necessary  by  the  threatening  aspects  of  the  time,  pre- 
vents that  careful  and  reverent  treatment  which  the 
theme  rightfully  demands.  But  to  get  the  word  spoken 


xii  PREFACE 

with  some  degree  of  clearness  and  persuasion  at  once, 
is  the  challenge  of  the  hour  to  those  who  are  convinced 
that  "  they  that  take  the  sword  shall  perish  with  the 
sword."  My  humble  and  yet  passionate  desire  to  do 
my  part  in  meeting  this  challenge  must  be  accepted  as 
the  explanation  of  this  book.  In  preparing  its  pages, 
I  have  tried  to  do  something  more  than  produce  one 
more  discussion  of  the  issue  presented  by  the  Great 
War.  This  conflict  is,  of  course,  the  occasion,  and 
very  largely  the  determining  condition,  of  all  that  I 
have  tried  to  say.  But  my  primary  purpose  has  been 
to  penetrate  to  the  very  heart  of  the  dilemma  suggested 
by  my  title,  and  open  up,  therefore,  from  the  deepest 
moral  and  spiritual  viewpoint,  the  basic  questions  of 
peace,  security,  and  the  law  of  life  itself.  This  line  of 
thought  has  made  it  necessary  for  me  to  discuss,  in  the 
course  of  my  main  argument,  relations  between  indi- 
viduals even  more  than  relations  between  groups  of  in- 
dividuals or  nations.  But  the  human  problem  is  the 
same  in  both  cases,  and  leads  therefore  to  the  same  con- 
clusion. That  my  attitude  toward  the  present  crisis 
may  be  unmistakable,  however,  and  especially  that  my 
thesis  may  receive  the  startling  illumination  provided  by 
the  European  conflagration,  I  have  interpersed  my  dis- 
cussion throughout  with  references  to  the  Great  War; 
and  in  my  concluding  chapters  have  considered  such 
immediate  questions  as  "  Is  War  Ever  Justifiable  ?  " 
"  Is  Permanent  and  Universal  Peace  to  be  Desired  ?  " 
and  "  The  Duty  and  Opportunity  of  America  To- 
day." 


PREFACE  xiii 

ra 

It  is  important,  if  the  argument  presented  in  this 
book  is  to  be  read  with  sympathy,  or  even  understood, 
that  certain  facts  should  be  particularly  noted  in  this 
place. 

( 1 )  First  of  all,  let  me  give  due  warning  against  the 
unfortunate  suggestions  contained  in  the  word,  non- 
resistance.  I  have  adopted  this  word,  as  the  motif 
of  my  argument,  so  to  speak,  with  the  greatest  re- 
luctance, and  only  because,  in  spite  of  diligent  search, 
I  have  been  able  to  find  no  word  in  our  English  language 
which  was  not  even  more  inadequate  and  inaccurate  than 
this  very  misleading  term.  Let  me  state  at  once,  how- 
ever, and  with  all  possible  emphasis,  that,  in  using  the 
word,  non-resistance,  I  accept  none  of  those  unfortu- 
nate and  immoral  implications  of  acquiescence,  coward- 
ice, feebleness,  which  the  word  seems  inevitably  to  sug- 
gest. Non-resistance,  as  I  have  set  forth  at  great 
length  in  my  chapters  on  "  What  Non-Resistance 
Means  "  and  "  Exemplars  of  Non-Resistance,"  means 
to  me  an  essentially  positive  and  indeed  aggressive  state 
of  mind  and  attitude.  The  true  non-resistant  is 
militant  —  but  he  lifts  his  militancy  from  the  plane  of 
physical,  to  the  plane  of  moral  and  spiritual  force. 
This  point  I  regard  as  so  important  to  a  true  under- 
standing of  my  argument,  that  I  am  almost  tempted  to 
advise  that  Chapters  IV,  V,  and  VI  be  read  before  any 
of  the  rest  of  the  book  is  approached.  This  much  at 
least  I  will  venture  to  ask  —  that  no  reader  reject  the 
book  until  these  chapters  have  been  perused. 


xiv  PREFACE 

(2)  Secondly,  I  would  point  out  that  my  argument 
is,   from  beginning  to   end,   almost  wholly  one   of   ex- 
pediency.    I  have  thus  couched  my  lance,  if  I  may  so 
express  it,  not  because  I  am  indifferent  to  the  idealism 
involved  in  my  plea.     On  the  contrary,  I  believe  that 
the  law  of  love  should  be  obeyed  even  though  it  lead 
always  to  death,  as  it  did  in  the  case  of  Jesus.     I  take 
it  for  granted,  however,  that  this  idealistic  part  of  my 
argument  needs  no  advocacy.     Everybody  agrees  that 
the  counsel  of  the  spirit  is  right,  but  the  question  re- 
mains, Will  it  work?     Men  balk  because  they  are  cer- 
tain that  this  gospel  will  not  stand  the  pragmatic  test. 
Just  here,  in  this  matter  of  workableness,  is  the  "  rub  " ; 
and  just  here,  therefore,  have  I  focussed  my  discussion. 
From  this  point  of  view,  my  thesis  may  be  said  to  stand 
or  fall,  according  as  the  arguments  in  Chapters  III  and 
VII  prove  convincing  or  unconvincing. 

(3)  Lastly,  I  would  point  out  that  I  have  made  no 
attempt  to  discuss  the  economic  aspects  of  the  problem 
of  war.     As  a  member  of  the  Society  for  Eliminating 
the  Economic  Causes  of  War,  and  as  one  who  is  pre- 
dominantly socialistic  in  his  thought,  I  am  convinced 
that  war  can  never  be  abolished  until  the  capitalistic 
system  of  domestic  and  foreign  competitive  exploita- 
tion is  first  abolished.     But  as  a  student  of  human  his- 
tory and  of  human  nature,  I  am  also  convinced  that  war 
can  never  be  abolished,  even  under  a  socialistic  regime, 
until  mankind   is   fronted   right   morally.     These   two 
questions  are  of  equal  importance.     They  can  be  dis- 
cussed separately  or  together.     For  my  purpose  in  this 


PREFACE  xv 

book,  I  have  chosen  to  separate  them,  and  have  delib- 
erately chosen  the  latter  for  my  discussion.  Economic 
students,  more  competent  than  I,  have  discussed,  and 
will  continue  to  discuss,  the  former. 

IV 

The  material  in  this  book  has  been  used  many  times 
during  the  past  year,  in  sermons  and  addresses.  Three 
of  the  chapters  —  namely,  the  eighth,  ninth,  and  tenth 
—  have  previously  appeared  as  separate  pamphlets,  but 
have  here  been  corrected,  revised,  and  amplified.  The 
sections  in  Chapter  V  on  Isaiah  and  Jesus  have  been 
published  as  separate  essays  in  "  The  Christian  Regis- 
ter "  and  "  The  North  American  Review  "  respectively. 
The  rest  of  the  volume  is  published  here  for  the  first 
time. 

In  closing,  I  beg  to  make  acknowledgment  of  the 
services  of  my  Secretary,  Miss  Mary  C.  Baker,  whose 
patience,  fidelity,  and  efficiency  have  been  indispensable 
in  the  writing  of  this  book. 

JOHN  HAYNES  HOLMES 

Church  of  the  Messiah, 
New  York  City, 
November  1,  1915. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

PREFACE vii 

CHAPTER 

I     INTRODUCTION  —  A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROB- 
LEM          3 

II  THE  LOGIC  OF  FORCE 39 

III  THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE 69 

IV  THE  MEANING  OF  NON-RESISTANCE        .      .      .113 

V  EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE  (ANCIENT)      .    143 

VI  EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE  (MODERN)       .    177 

VII  THE  PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE    .      .211 

VIII  Is  WAR  EVER  JUSTIFIABLE? 265 

IX     Is  PERMANENT  AND  UNIVERSAL  PEACE  TO  BE 

DESIRED? 297 

X     THE  DUTY  AND  OPPORTUNITY  OF  AMERICA  TO- 
DAY         329 

APPENDIX 351 

INDEX   ,  ....'.   355 


"  War  and  peace  resolve  themselves  into  a  mercury  of  the  state 
of  cultivation.  At  a  certain  stage  of  his  progress,  the  man  fights, 
if  he  be  of  a  sound  body  and  mind.  At  a  certain  higher  stage, 
he  makes  no  offensive  demonstration,  but  is  alert  to  repel  injury, 
and  of  an  unconquerable  heart.  At  a  still  higher  stage,  he  comes 
into  the  region  of  holiness;  passion  has  passed  from  him;  his  war- 
like nature  is  all  converted  into  an  active  medicinal  principle;  he 
sacrifices  himself,  and  accepts  with  alacrity  wearisome  tasks  of 
denial  and  charity;  but  being  attacked,  he  bears  it  and  turns  the 
other  cheek,  as  one  engaged,  throughout  his  being,  no  longer  to 
the  service  of  an  individual,  but  to  the  common  soul  of  all  men." 

Ralph  Waldo  Emerson,  in  Lecture  on  War. 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTION 
A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM 


"  The  modern  prophet,  employing  the  methods  of  science,  may 
again  proclaim  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand.  .  .  .  And 
what  is  this  message  of  the  modern  prophet  but  pure  Christianity? 
—  not  the  mass  of  theological  doctrine  ingeniously  piled  up  by 
Athanasius  and  Augustine,  but  the  real  and  essential  Christianity 
which  came  from  the  very  lips  of  Jesus,  '  Blessed  are  the  meek, 
for  they  shall  inherit  the  earth.'  In  the  cruel  strife  of  centuries 
has  it  not  often  seemed  as  if  the  earth  were  to  be  rather  the  prize 
of  the  hardest  heart  and  the  strongest  fist?  To  many  men  these 
words  of  Christ  have  been  as  foolishness  and  as  a  stumbling-block, 
and  the  ethics  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  have  been  openly  de- 
rided as  too  good  for  this  world.  .  .  .  The  Master  knew  full  well 
that  the  time  was  not  yet  ripe.  .  .  .  But  he  preached  nevertheless 
that  gospel  which  is  by  and  by  to  be  realised  by  toiling  Humanity, 
and  he  announced  ethical  principles  fit  for  the  time  that  is  coming. 
The  great  originality  of  his  teaching,  and  the  feature  that  has 
chiefly  given  it  power  in  the  world,  lay  in  the  distinctness  with 
which  he  conceived  a  state  of  society  from  which  every  vestige  of 
strife,  and  the  modes  of  behaviour  adapted  to  ages  of  strife,  shall 
be  utterly  and  forever  swept  away.  .  .  .  The  future  is  lighted  for 
us  with  the  radiant  colours  of  hope.  .  .  .  Strife  and  sorrow  shall 
disappear.  Peace  and  love  shall  reign  supreme." — John  Fiske,  in 
The  Destiny  of  Man. 


CHAPTER  I 

INTRODUCTION  A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM 


THAT  the  present  age  constitutes  the  most  fateful 
period  of  time  "  the  world  has  seen  since  the  records 
of  mankind  began  to  be  kept,"  was  asserted  by  a  compe- 
tent student  of  public  affairs  as  long  ago  as  August, 
1914.  To  many  of  us  this  assertion  seemed  exagger- 
ated, even  though  the  week  which  saw  Germany's  decla- 
ration of  war  against  Russia,  France's  declaration  of 
war  against  Germany,  and  at  last,  after  days  of  heart- 
breaking suspense,  England's  launching  of  great  ships 
into  the  storm  of  conflict,  was  the  most  thrilling  and 
terrible  that  we  had  ever  experienced.  As  the  dreadful 
struggle  has  gone  on,  however,  from  month  to  month, 
dragging  in  nation  after  nation,  extending  to  every  one 
of  the  six  continents  and  seven  seas  of  the  globe,  and 
piling  up  such  a  toll  of  shattered  cities,  wasted  fields, 
exhausted  wealth,  pain,  death,  misery,  as  baffles  compu- 
tation, it  has  become  evident  enough  that  humanity  has 
never  in  all  its  history  beheld  such  a  spectacle  or  faced 
such  a  crisis.  There  have  been  universal  wars  before 
this.  The  decline  and  fall  of  the  Roman  Empire  in  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  the  great  struggles  for  im- 
perial dominion  in  the  Middle  Ages,  the  campaigns  of 


4  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

Napoleon  in  the  twenty  years  following  the  Revolution 
—  all  these  were  cataclysms  which  engulfed  mankind  in 
ruin  and  despair.  But  no  one  of  them  is  in  any  way 
comparable  to  our  own  War  of  the  Nations.  Never 
before  have  so  many  highly  organised  peoples  been  in- 
volved in  life-and-death  struggle  —  never  before  have 
whole  nations  been  martialled  in  arms  for  combat  — 
never  before  have  the  lines  of  battle  been  so  extended, 
and  the  number  of  soldiers  engaged  so  prodigious  — 
never  before  have  such  mighty  weapons  been  at  the  dis- 
posal of  contending  armies  —  never  before  have  such 
stupendous  forces  been  let  loose  upon  the  world.  Al- 
ready there  has  been  a  refinement  of  efficiency,  a  thor- 
oughness of  destruction,  a  ruthlessness  of  attack,  a 
frightfulness  of  slaughter  which  has  staggered  the  race. 
And  we  are  as  yet  only  in  the  early  stages  of  a  combat 
which  must  witness  prodigies  of  horror,  hitherto  unim- 
agined  as  well  as  unknown,  before  the  end  of  the  ghastly 
business  is  reached !  What  this  end  will  be,  no  man  at 
the  present  moment  can  dare  even  so  much  as  to  sur- 
mise. That  it  will  involve  the  fall  of  dynasties,  the  ex- 
haustion of  nations,  the  wastage  of  vast  stretches  of  ter- 
ritory, the  indefinite  enslavement  of  future  generations 
to  debts  of  incalculable  proportions,  the  permanent 
reversion  of  great  peoples  in  wealth,  activity,  ambition, 
physical  strength,  moral  standards,  is  reasonably  cer- 
tain. That  it  will  mean  the  tumbling  of  our  entire  eco- 
nomic system,  the  extinction  of  whole  areas  of  modern 
civilisation,  the  return  of  Europe  to  the  condition  of 
Germany  in  the  years  following  the  Thirty  Years'  War, 


A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM          5 

when  bands  of  brigands  roved  unmolested  through  silent 
wastes  once  crowded  with  fair  cities  and  waving  fields, 
even  the  sweeping  destruction  of  the  modern  world  by 
the  terrific  power  of  the  engines  of  its  own  creation,  as 
Mr.  H.  G.  Wells  has  not  hesitated  to  suggest,1  seems 
not  impossible.  For  the  first  time  since  the  pyramids 
were  builded  in  the  Egyptian  deserts,  men  find  them- 
selves living  in  an  age,  and  looking  upon  a  situation, 
wherein  the  forces  of  human  life  have  passed  beyond  the 
control  of  those  who  have  madly  created  them  and  as 
madly  set  them  free!  For  the  first  time,  perhaps,  in 
history,  anything  may  happen ! 

n 

Not  yet,  however,  in  speaking  of  battles  and  cam- 
paigns, wasted  wealth  and  slaughtered  men,  have  we 
reached  the  heart  of  the  situation  which  constitutes  this 
war  the  supreme  crisis  of  the  ages.  Nor  can  this  be 
done  by  considering  such  isolated  and  comparatively 
unimportant  matters  as  the  various  military,  political 
and  industrial  phases  of  the  struggle.  In  order  to  see 
and  understand  in  all  its  seriousness  the  exact  nature  of 
the  present  crisis,  we  must  pass  beyond  the  particular 
aspects  of  the  phenomenon  and  come  to  the  phenomenon 
itself  —  or  rather  we  must  gather  together  all  these 
different  aspects  into  a  single  synthesis,  and  thus  dis- 
cover what  is  the  single  great  problem  which  is  involved. 
And  this  process  will  hardly  be  begun,  before  it  will 
become  evident  that  the  present  problem  in  its  essence 
i  See  his  Social  Forces  in  England  and  America,  page  383. 


6  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

is  none  other  than  that  most  fundamental  of  all  prob- 
lems —  the  nature  of  human  existence,  the  law  of  human 
life,  the  rule  of  human  conduct. 

For  generations,  indeed  centuries,  in  the  past,  man 
has  been  moving  forward  slowly  but  surely  to  the  great 
goal  of  a  permanent  civilisation,  based  upon  the  ideas 
of  reason,  righteousness,  and  good  will.  Again  and 
again  has  progress  toward  this  end  been  halted  by  acci- 
dent, retarded  by  fear,  turned  aside  or  thrown  back  by 
ignorance,  stupidity,  and  sin.  Sooner  or  later,  how- 
ever, the  pathway  has  been  rediscovered,  the  momen- 
tum of  advance  resumed,  and  the  line  of  progress  there- 
fore continued.  Especially  in  recent  times  has  this 
progress,  to  all  appearances  at  least,  been  rapid  and 
permanent.  The  mind  of  the  world  in  the  opening 
years  of  the  twentieth  century  was  most  emphatically 
an  optimistic  mind.  It  beheld  serious  obstacles  being 
overcome,  knotty  problems  being  solved,  remote  ideals 
being  realised.  It  seemed  to  see  humanity,  after  cen- 
turies of  wandering  in  the  wilderness,  now  nearing  the 
borders  of  the  promised  land.  Long  a  barbarian,  man 
had  spoken  as  a  barbarian,  thought  as  a  barbarian,  un- 
derstood as  a  barbarian ;  but  now,  if  the  signs  were 
valid,  man  was  becoming  civilised,  and  lo,  with  his  at- 
tainment to  civilisation,  he  was  resolutely  putting  away 
barbarous  things. 

Even  in  what  had  long  seemed  to  be  the  most  discour- 
aging of  all  fields  —  that  of  international  and  inter- 
racial relationships  —  was  sure  progress  apparently  be- 
ing made  at  this  time.  To  an  almost  astonishing  de- 


A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM          7 

gree  were  the  long-sought  ideas  of  reason,  righteousness 
and  goodwill  taking  form  in  definite  institutions  of 
order  and  fraternity.  Two  Hague  Conferences  had 
consummated  the  great  achievement  of  assembling 
"  all  the  world  in  one  room,"  as  Dr.  Frederick  Lynch 
has  vividly  expressed  it.1  The  Hague  Court  had 
been  successfully  established  as  a  kind  of  supreme  court 
among  the  nations.  Numerous  treaties  of  arbitration 
between  great  states  had  been  signed,  thus  blazing  a 
pathway  through  the  tangled  wilderness  of  barbarism 
to  "  the  pleasant  places  "  of  understanding,  sympathy 
and  co-operation.  International  societies  of  every  pos- 
sible description  had  been  organised,  and  were  year  by 
year  bringing  into  ever  closer  personal  communication 
and  fellowship  the  best  minds  of  every  country.  Great 
international  movements,  such  as  socialism,  woman  suf- 
frage, universal  religion,  and  the  peace  propaganda  it- 
self, were  more  and  more  tending  to  obliterate  the  arti- 
ficial boundaries  of  nations,  and  thus  to  unite  people 
upon  a  basis  not  of  geographical  accident,  but  of  those 
sublime  interests  of  human  good  which  from  their  very 
nature  transcend  all  distinctions  of  language,  creed, 
nationality  and  race.  In  spite  of  blind  and  selfish 
statesmanship,  which  still  remained  faithful  to  ancient 
precedent  in  fostering  national  pride,  in  serving  so- 
called  national  interests  in  various  quarters  of  the 
world,  in  organising  immoral  alliances  and  ententes  and 
balances  of  power  which  had  no  higher  object  than  that 
of  placing  one  group  of  nations  in  unfriendly  array 

1  See  his  The  Peace  Problem,  page  15. 


8  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

against  another,  and  especially  in  building  stupendous 
armaments  on  the  specious  plea  that  such  preparations 
for  war  are  the  only  guarantee  of  peace  —  in  spite  of 
these  facts,  most  forward-looking  persons  had  come  to 
believe  that,  so  numerous  and  powerful  were  the  forces 
making  for  peace,  the  old  perpetual  menace  of  inter- 
national conflict  had  at  last  passed  by  forever.  For  the 
first  time  in  the  history  of  the  world,  it  seemed  as 
though  we  were  beginning  to  realise  outwardly  the  in- 
ward truth  of  St.  Paul's  great  dictum  — "  God  hath 
made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men,  for  to  dwell  to- 
gether on  the  face  of  the  earth."  For  the  first  time,  it 
seemed  as  though  Jesus's  definition  of  love  as  the  law  of 
life  were  going  to  be  vindicated. 

And  then,  in  the  space  of  a  single  night,  as  it  were, 
came  the  crash  of  ruin !  Without  warning  of  any 
kind,  the  whole  fair  structure  of  our  hopes  and  dreams 
came  tumbling  to  the  ground.  Confident  that  we  were 
at  last  civilised,  we  awakened,  as  in  the  clutch  of  an 
earthquake,  to  discover  that  we  were  still  barbarians. 
Believing  that,  after  two  thousand  years  of  effort, 
Christianity  was  at  last  imposing  its  divine  law  of 
brotherhood  upon  the  human  heart,  we  were  made  to 
behold  that  we  were  still,  like  any  tiger  of  the  jungle, 
"  red  in  tooth  and  claw  with  ravin."  Trusting  in  the 
conserving  influences  of  education,  industry,  religion, 
and  the  modern  movements  of  international  association, 
we  found  ourselves  hurled  back  into  the  early  horror  of 
sheer  brute  struggle  for  survival.  In  an  instant,  the 
realm  of  dreams  was  gone,  and  we  were  face  to  face 


A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM         9 

with  the  hard,  cold,  bitter  facts  of  a  world  which  we 
thought  had  been  conquered  and  subdued.  In  one  fell 
moment,  hope  was  shattered,  faith  destroyed,  courage 
lost.  A  hundred  ancient  doubts  rose  up  to  plague  us. 
A  thousand  primitive  questions  challenged  us  anew. 
The  original  and  basic  problems  of  life,  solved  as  we 
had  thought  forever,  were  again  before  us  for  consider- 
ation. It  was  as  though  unnumbered  aeons  of  time 
were  instantaneously  wiped  out,  and  we  were  back  in 
the  days  of  primeval  chaos  when  "  the  earth  was  with- 
out form  and  void,  and  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of 
the  deep,"  with  no  hope  but  that  of  a  new  day  of  crea- 
tion, in  some  far  distant  time,  when  "  the  spirit  of  God 
(would  once  again)  move  upon  the  face  of  the  waters," 
light  be  again  divided  from  darkness,  and  the  dry  ground 
of  unfolding  life  again  appear  from  out  the  waters  of 
desolation. 

m 

Just  here,  now,  in  this  reversion  to  first  moral  prin- 
ciples—  in  this  sudden  conjuring  up,  in  more  terrible 
form  than  ever  before,  of  problems  which  we  thought 
had  been  laid  once  for  all  —  do  we  find  the  supreme 
crisis,  and  tragedy  as  well,  of  this  present  hour.  In 
essence,  these  problems  present  but  a  single  issue.  Is 
the  flesh  supreme,  or  may  we  still  place  reliance  upon 
the  spirit  ?  Must  we  put  our  trust  in  "  chariots  be- 
cause they  are  many  and  horsemen  because  they  are 
strong,"  or  may  we  still,  with  Isaiah,  have  confidence  in 
God  alone  ?  Is  Bernhardi's  doctrine,  that  "  feeble- 


10  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

ness  is  the  unpardonable  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  " 
established,  or  may  we  still  believe,  with  Jesus,  that 
"the  meek  shall  inherit  the  earth"?  In  form,  how- 
ever, these  problems  are  as  various  as  the  various  re- 
lationships and  activities  of  men.  Three  at  least  are 
of  prime  importance  to  us  at  this  moment  in  our  dis- 
cussion of  the  general  question  of  pacifism. 

First  of  all,  there  is  the  perennial  problem  of  the  es- 
tablishment of  international  peace.  The  idea  of  a 
permanent  condition  of  concord  among  the  different 
peoples  of  the  earth,  is  as  old  certainly  as  the  annals  of 
recorded  history,  and  may  safely  be  thought  to  be  as 
old,  perhaps,  as  humankind  itself.  It  appears  in  the 
teachings  of  Confucius  and  Lao-Tse,  which  are  among 
the  most  ancient  which  have  been  preserved  to  the 
modern  world.  It  flames  in  lines  of  fire  from  the  writ- 
ings of  Isaiah  and  the  sayings  of  Buddha.  It  adorns 
the  pages  of  Thucydides  as  he  tells  the  tale  of  ancient 
Greece,  and  of  Livy  as  he  recounts  the  similar  narrative 
of  Rome.  It  is  the  inspiration  of  many  of  the  noblest 
passages  in  the  Annals  of  Tacitus  and  the  Meditations 
of  Marcus  Aurelius.  It  constitutes  the  warp  and  woof 
of  the  fabric  of  Jesus's  gospel;  and  marks  predomi- 
nantly the  teaching  and  practice  of  all  the  early  Chris- 
tians from  St.  Paul  to  the  last  of  the  line  of  the  so- 
called  Church  Fathers.  It  glorifies  the  Middle  Ages 
in  such  a  phenomenon  as  the  Truce  of  God,  and  in  such 
a  person  as  the  sainted  Francis  of  Assisi.  It  is  a  vital 
part  of  the  Reformation,  as  witness  the  steadfast  testi- 
mony of  Erasmus,  the  early  and  as  yet  uncorrupted 


A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM       11 

doctrines  of  Luther  and  Calvin,  and  especially  the 
radiant  visions  of  George  Fox.  Taught  in  the  seven- 
teenth century  in  the  name  of  a  revealed  religion,  in 
the  eighteenth  century -in  the  name  of  an  abstract  hu- 
manity, in  the  nineteenth  century  in  the  name  of  a  very 
practical  science,  industry  and  commerce,  this  idea  of 
peace  had  become  in  our  time  the  predominant  ideal  of 
the  hour. 

It  is  interesting,  as  well  as  pathetic,  to  recall,  in  this 
moment  of  dissolutionment,  the  extent  to  which  this  ideal 
of  international  harmony  and  goodwill  had  seized  upon 
the  imagination  of  the  modern  world.  Only  a  few 
months  ago,  and  everybody  was  cherishing  the  hope  that 
this  vision  of  peace,  which  had  so  long  been  so  far  re- 
moved upon  the  horizon  of  the  future,  was  at  last  in 
process  of  actual  realisation.  Militarists,  with  a  few 
exceptions  like  Lord  Roberts,  were  pointing  to  the  great 
armaments  of  modern  times  and  declaring  that  such 
preparations  for  war  were  the  surest  guarantee  of 
peace.  Scientists  like  the  great  Russian,  Bloch,  were 
telling  us  that  the  armaments,  with  which  all  the  great 
nations  of  the  world  were  so  amply  provided,  had  been 
developed  to  a  degree  of  such  terrible  efficiency,  that 
warfare  between  contending  forces  on  land  and  sea  had 
been  made  to  all  intents  and  purposes  impossible. 
Economists  like  Norman  Angell,  were  showing  us,  in 
terms  of  trade,  investments  and  finance  generally,  that 
war  in  our  age  was  as  ruinous  to  the  victor  as  to  the 
vanquished  and  was  therefore  already  become  an 
anachronism  to  which  kings  and  premiers  could  no 


12  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

longer  make  resort.  Jurists  and  statesmen  of  all 
countries  were  rejoicing  in  the  Hague  Conferences,  will- 
ingly referring  matters  of  dispute  to  the  Hague  Court, 
and  competing  with  one  another  in  the  signing  of 
treaties  of  arbitration.  Scholars  were  taking  comfort 
in  the  great  international  societies  of  learning,  working- 
men  in  the  international  labour  movement,  Christians  in 
the  growing  international  consciousness  and  co-opera- 
tion of  the  churches  of  many  lands,  peace  lovers  every- 
where in  the  sweeping  progress  of  the  organised  peace 
propaganda.  All  the  forces  of  the  time  —  military, 
political,  commercial,  educational,  industrial,  religious 
—  seemed  to  be  moving  straight  toward  the  fulfilment 
of  the  long-cherished  dream  of  the  prophets  and  seers. 
The  will  to  peace  was  already  at  hand  —  the  way  was 
very  rapidly  being  found.  Then,  as  we  have  seen, 
came  the  war  which,  from  the  first  day  of  hostilities, 
was  fought  on  a  scale  and  with  a  fury  never  known  be- 
fore. And  instantly  the  problem  of  peace  was  reduced 
to  its  simplest  terms,  as  though  we  were  living  once 
again  in  the  days  of  Cain.  Is  there  any  such  thing  as 
peace?  Is  not  man  a  fighting  animal  and  war  therefore 
a  permanent  contingency  of  man's  existence?  Did  not 
Frederick  the  Great  state  the  final  truth  of  the  matter 
when  he  said,  in  one  of  his  numerous  letters  to  his  friend, 
Voltaire,  "  I  study  the  pages  of  history,  and  see  that 
wars  have  always  broken  out  at  a  period  of  every  ten 
years.  I  believe  that  there  will  be  some  abating  of  this 
fever  of  conflict,  but  I  also-  believe  that  this  conflict 
will  never  cease." 


A  second  problem  raised  up  anew  by  the  outbreak  of 
the  Great  War,  is  that  of  security  —  security  for  the 
individual,  for  the  nation,  and  for  the  great  organised 
body  of  society  at  large.  This  problem  has  its  roots, 
of  course,  in  nothing  less  fundamental  than  that  most 
primitive  and  potent  of  all  human  passions,  the  instinct 
of  self-preservation.  Every  organism,  from  the  lowest 
form  of  animal  to  the  highest  type  of  man,  yearns  to 
possess  life  and  to  pass  on  this  life  to  succeeding  gener- 
ations. Nor  is  this  yearning  in  any  way  confined  to  the 
individual  as  such.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  as  much  a 
sensation  of  the  herd,  so  to  speak,  as  of  the  isolated 
organism  —  so  that  groups  of  men,  such  as  nations,  for 
example,  are  just  as  instinct  with  the  desire  to  live  as 
any  single  member  of  the  group.  It  is  this  which  ex- 
plains the  passion  for  security,  as  we  call  it,  which  has 
played  so  large  a  part  in  the  military  history  of  man- 
kind. If  any  careful  study  of  the  wars  of  the  world, 
from  the  most  ancient  time  down  to  our  own  day,  should 
be  made  from  the  standpoint  of  causes  and  results,  I  am 
certain  that  it  would  be  found  that  more  wars  had  been 
fought  for  the  sake  of  security  against  barbarians, 
heathens,  enemies  feared  and  hated  for  one  reason  or  an- 
other, than  for  all  other  purposes  of  revenge,  conquest, 
dynastic  pride,  or  what  not,  put  together.  If  men 
have  leaped  eagerly  into  war  in  the  past,  it  is  very 
largely  because  they  desired  to  gain  that  supremacy  in 
drms  which  could  alone  guarantee  them  national  se- 
curity. If  men  have  clung  to  war  in  our  age,  it  is  be- 
cause they  feared  that  there  might  appear  at  any  time 


14  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

some  crisis  of  last  resort  in  which  an  appeal  to  arms 
could  alone  protect  them  from  destruction.  If  men 
have  ever  consented  to  peace,  it  is  because  they  have 
felt,  for  some  good  reason  or  other,  secure.  And  if 
they  have  dreamed  to-day  of  peace  as  a  permanent  con- 
dition of  good,  it  is  because  they  have  felt  that  the  es- 
tablishment of  such  a  condition  would  bring  to  them 
just  that  perfect  assurance  of  security  which  has  been 
so  eagerly  desired,  and  never  yet  attained. 

Now  just  exactly  as  the  world  had  come  to  the  point 
of  thinking,  a  few  years  or  even  a  few  months  ago,  that 
the  reign  of  peace  was  about  to  appear  upon  the  earth, 
so  also,  for  the  same  reasons,  had  it  come  to  the  point 
of  thinking  that  security  was  about  to  be  realised  for 
each  and  every  nation  in  the  concert  of  nations.  It 
made  little  difference  whether  the  observer  was  a 
pacifist  or  a  militarist,  he  was  in  either  case  reason- 
ably assured  of  a  world  organised,  or  very  nearly 
organised,  for  security  as  well  as  peace.  The  pacifist 
saw  the  rapidly  multiplying  influences  of  international 
goodwill,  and  the  mechanism  created  and  operated  by 
these  influences,  to  which  we  have  already  made  abun- 
dant reference.  The  militarist  looked  upon  a  very  dif- 
ferent scene,  but  saw  indirectly  the  same  result.  The 
great  nations  of  Europe  were  building  and  maintain- 
ing armaments  so  terrible  that  no  one  of  them  would 
dare  to  lift  its  sword  against  another.  These  nations 
were  arrayed  in  alliances  or  ententes,  which  formed  a 
balance  of  power  and  therefore  an  equilibrium  of  forces 
which  made  a  cataclysm  impossible.  Smaller  nations 


A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM       15 

of  Europe,  like  Belgium,  for  example,  which  were  un- 
able to  protect  themselves  by  force  of  arms,  were 
guaranteed  security  by  treaties  of  neutrality,  which 
protected  their  territory  from  invasion  by  their  more 
powerful  neighbours.  Still  others  of  these  smaller  na- 
tions were  protected  by  treaties  of  alliance  or  secret 
agreements  with  the  larger  and  more  powerful  states, 
as  Portugal  with  England,  and  Serbia  with  Russia. 
In  some  way  or  other,  all  the  European  nations  were 
parts  of  a  great  diplomatic  or  militarist  organisation, 
the  strength  and  completeness  of  which  were  the  guar- 
antee to  each  of  safety.  Every  now  and  then,  to  be 
sure,  on  the  occasion  of  an  Italian  war  in  Tripoli,  or  an 
outbreak  in  the  Balkans,  a  dreadful  fear  would  seize  the 
peoples  of  Europe,  and  for  a  moment  the  whole  organ- 
isation, built  up  with  such  infinite  pains  and  held  to- 
gether at  such  enormous  expense,  would  seem  on  the 
verge  of  collapse.  But  the  crisis  would  pass  almost  as 
suddenly  as  it  had  appeared,  and  confidence  would  be 
restored. 

Then,  as  we  have  already  seen,  came  the  Great  War, 
and  with  it  the  discovery  that,  in  the  matter  of  security 
as  in  the  matter  of  peace,  we  were  all  of  us  living  in 
the  land  of  dreams.  The  pacifist,  to  his  consterna- 
tion, saw  his  bulwarks  against  war  swept  away  as  the 
swollen  Mississippi,  in  flood  time,  sweeps  away  its 
levees.  The  militarist,  to  his  equal  consternation,  be- 
held his  armaments  make  war  certain  rather  than  im- 
possible, his  treaties  of  neutrality  torn  up  as  so  many 
"  scraps  of  paper,"  and  his  nicely  adjusted  balances  of 


16  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

power  the  perfect  preparation  and  the  potent  guaran- 
tee not  of  security  for  any  nation  or  group  of  nations, 
but  of  universal  disaster  for  all.  In  other  words,  the 
whole  promise  of  security  was  nullified  everywhere  and 
at  once,  and  the  whole  problem  raised  anew  for  settle- 
ment. Every  nation  in  the  war  to-day  is  fighting  first 
to  protect  itself  against  extinction  at  the  hands  of  its 
enemies,  and  secondly  to  assure  to  itself,  when  the  battle 
is  done,  such  a  new  order  of  affairs  as  shall  render  it 
forever  safe  from  future  attack.  And  every  nation 
outside  of  the  war  to-day,  from  little  Switzerland  in  the 
very  heart  of  the  ring  of  flame  to  great  America  three 
thousand  or  more  miles  away,  is  considering  as  the  first 
and  foremost  duty  of  the  hour  the  question  of  how  to 
secure  itself  from  all  possibility  of  suffering  such  dis- 
aster as  has  engulfed  its  combatant  neighbours. 

The  third  problem  precipitated  by  the  Great  War  is 
more  serious  and  significant  than  either  of  the  two  just 
mentioned.  Indeed,  it  is  a  problem  occasioned  and 
presented  by  these  two,  and  therefore  as  much  more 
important  as  the  end  is  more  important  than  the  means. 
For  peace  and  security  are  certainly  nothing  in  them- 
selves. A  man,  or  a  nation,  does  not  want  peace  for 
the  sake  of  peace,  nor  security  for  the  sake  of  security. 
The  oyster,  for  example,  enclosed  within  the  granite- 
like  walls  of  its  shell  and  buried  away  in  the  mud  at  the 
bottom  of  the  bay,  undoubtedly  is  at  peace  with  itself 
and  the  world,  and  may  be  regarded  as  reasonably  se- 
cure. The  African  lion,  pacing  his  cage  in  the  zoo- 
logical garden,  is  at  peace  when  his  meal  has  been  de- 


A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM       17 

voured,  and  is  at  all  times  perfectly  secure  behind  his 
bars.  The  convict  in  his  cell  lives  in  a  condition  of 
peace  so  undisturbed  as  to  tempt  him  to  insanity  or 
revolt,  and  enjoys  a  degree  of  security  which  is  his  day- 
and-night  despair.  In  such  conditions  as  these,  peace 
and  security  are  easy  enough  to  attain,  undoubtedly. 
But  what  do  they  amount  to  when  so  attained?  Who 
of  us  desires  them  as  ends  in  and  for  themselves?  The 
oyster,  for  all  its  peace  and  security,  offers  to  us  no 
temptations.  The  lion,  mere  brute  creature  that  he  is, 
would  gladly  rove  the  jungle,  and  battle  in  danger  for 
the  necessities  of  life,  if  he  could  only  escape  the  calm 
security  of  his  cage.  And  what  convict  does  not  break 
his  dungeon  walls,  when  opportunity  offers,  in  hungry 
quest  of  that  life  which  the  peace  and  security  of  the 
prison  cell  deny? 

Peace  and  security,  in  other  words,  have  no  value, 
nor  even  meaning,  in  themselves.  They  attain  value 
and  meaning  only  as  they  lead  to  a  higher,  richer,  more 
abundant  type  of  life.  Life  is  the  great  thing  —  the 
essential  thing.  Hence  the  third  problem,  of  which 
peace  and  security  alike,  as  I  have  said,  are  the  mere 
conditions !  What  is  life  ?  What  is  the  goal  of  ex- 
istence toward  which  the  individual  and  the  nation 
should  alike  direct  their  powers?  What  is  the  ideal 
plan  of  vital  action  in  which  peace  and  security  should 
be  incorporated  as  means  to  ends?  This  is  the  final 
question  to-day,  as  in  every  day  of  the  world's  history. 
And  a  few  years  —  nay,  a  few  months  —  ago,  there 
were  few  of  us  who  would  not  have  been  ready  to  declare 


18  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

that  we  were  beginning  to  understand  this  question  and 
approximate  an  answer  thereto.  We  believed,  with  per- 
fect assurance,  that  the  gospel  of  life  had  been  spoken, 
in  part  if  not  in  whole,  by  certain  of  the  great  prophets 
of  old,  and  that  little  by  little,  this  gospel  was  begin- 
ning to  be  accepted  and  practised  by  men.  Our  age, 
we  would  have  said,  was  pre-eminent  in  its  endeavour  to 
fulfil  the  law  of  life  long  since  laid  down  by  those  who 
have  lived  the  life  of  love.  But  now,  forsooth,  under 
the  stress  and  strain  of  an  unforeseen  international 
struggle,  we  discover  that  this  problem,  like  the  others 
of  which  I  have  spoken,  is  not  yet  settled.  The  gospel 
of  love  is  challenged  by  the  gospel  of  power,  the  law  of 
service  by  the  law  of  necessity,  the  religion  of  the  heart 
by  the  religion  of  the  will.  The  whole  issue  of  what 
life  is  and  how  it  is  to  be  used,  in  other  words,  we  find 
to  be  no  longer  an  incentive  to  action  but  a  proposition 
for  debate.  Existence  is  thrown  back  upon  itself. 
The  whole  order  of  human  relationships  is  cast  into  the 
melting  pot  of  war.  After  centuries  of  development 
and  struggle,  we  are  face  to  face  to-day  with  exactly 
the  same  question  that  baffled  the  hairy  cave-man  as  he 
gnawed  his  bone  and  plotted  evil  against  his  neighbour. 
Not  merely  how  to  establish  peace,  nor  yet  how  to  gain 
security,  but  how  to  live  —  this  is  our  question.  With 
the  return  of  the  world  to  chaos,  as  I  have  said,  life  be- 
gins anew! 

IV 

Here,  now,  are  the  more  important  of  the  problems 
which  have  been  raised  by  the  outbreak  of  the  War  of 


A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM       19 

the  Nations.  And  here,  by  the  mere  statement  of  these 
problems,  do  we  find  ourselves  taken  into  the  very 
heart  of  the  question  which  we  are  proposing  for  dis- 
cussion. For  whatever  may  be  the  various  answers 
which  are  offered  to  our  problems,  these  are  all  to  be 
classified,  in  the  last  analysis,  under  two  separate  heads. 
In  other  words,  our  attempts  to  settle  the  issues  raised 
by  the  stupendous  spectacle  of  a  world  in  arms  bring  us 
at  once  face  to  face  with  two  perfectly  distinct  and 
mutually  exclusive  doctrines  of  life. 

On  the  one  hand,  we  find  the  doctrine  which  I  shall 
call,  for  our  purposes  of  discussion  in  this  book,  the 
doctrine  of  force.  This  doctrine  finds  its  ultimate 
justification,  as  we  shall  see  at  some  length  further  on, 
in  an  interpretation  of  all  forms  of  activity  in  terms 
of  the  great  phenomenon  of  the  struggle  for  existence. 
All  life,  say  the  supporters  of  this  doctrine,  is  a  process 
of  struggle.  The  grass  blades  in  the  pasture  struggle 
against  one  another  for  the  ray  of  sunshine  and  the 
drop  of  rain.  The  insects  flitting  about  in  the  open 
air  of  the  harvest  field,  battle  for  the  means  of  sub- 
sistence which  can  be  enjoyed  by  but  a  few.  The  wild 
creatures  of  the  jungle  rend  and  tear  in  one  long,  bloody 
and  powerful  contest  not  merely  for  dominance  but  for 
survival.  And  what  is  true  of  leaf  and  fly  and  animal  is 
true  also  of  man,  in  both  his  savage  and  civilised  stages 
of  existence. 

But  the  doctrine  of  force  bases  itself  not  only  on  this 
great  and  undeniable  fact  of  struggle,  but  also  on 
what  it  regards  as  the  further  fact  that  this  struggle  is 


20  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

always  pursued  on  the  level  of  physical  energy. 
Whether  it  be  the  plant  or  the  insect,  the  animal  or  the 
human  which  is  battling,  it  is  always  the  physical 
weapon  which  is  used ;  always  the  organism  which  can 
gather  up  within  itself  the  largest  amount  of  sheer 
material  strength  and  direct  this  strength  most  ef- 
fectively against  the  enemy,  that  is  the  one  which  wins 
out  in  the  contest  for  survival.  Exemplars  of  this 
struggle  run  all  the  way  from  the  hawk  and  the  wolf  to 
an  Alexander,  Napoleon,  and  von  Hindenberg.  The 
weapons  of  the  fray  begin  with  the  tooth  of  the  tiger 
and  the  fang  of  the  serpent,  and  end,  for  the  present 
at  least,  with  the  submarine,  the  Zeppelin,  and  the  42- 
centimetre  siege  gun  of  the  Germans.  Interpretations 
of  the  battle  take  forms  as  various  as  the  half-articulate 
cry  of  the  savage  shouting  vengeance  against  his  foe, 
and  the  carefully  wrought  philosophy  of  Nietzsche  or 
history  of  Treitschke.  "  All  are  but  parts  of  one 
stupendous  whole,"  however  —  a  doctrine  of  supreme 
reliance  upon  the  efficacy  of  physical  force,  in  a  struggle 
which  means  life  or  death  to  the  combatants  involved ! 
But  the  defenders  of  this  gospel,  if  we  may  call  it 
such,  do  not  end  with  pointing  out  facts  which  they  be- 
lieve cannot  be  contradicted  and  therefore  must  be  ac- 
cepted. They  go  on  and  point  out  the  interesting  cir- 
cumstance that  these  phenomena  of  struggle  and  sur- 
vival on  the  basis  of  physical  energy  are  not  only  real, 
but  "  true  and  righteous  altogether."  They  are  justi- 
fied, that  is,  pragmatically,  and  thus  raised  at  once  be- 
yond the  level  of  the  merely  physical  to  the  infinitely 


higher  level  of  the  moral  and  spiritual.  The  struggle, 
in  other  words,  is  something  more  than  a  mere  contest 
of  strength.  It  is,  at  bottom,  a  testing  of  soul  —  a 
divine  process  for  the  selection  of  the  fit  from  the  un- 
fit, the  strong  from  the  weak,  the  worthy  from  the  un- 
worthy, the  heroic  from  the  cowardly.  The  struggle 
of  organism  with  organism  is  no  mere  lustful  fight  for 
food,  or  water,  or  propagation  of  the  species.  Rather 
is  it  a  battle  of  good  against  bad,  of  health  against  dis- 
ease, of  growth  against  decay,  of  life  against  death. 
Here  in  these  mighty  struggles  do  we  see  the  creative 
process.  It  is  this,  continued  through  many  ages,  by 
beasts  unnumbered,  that  has  at  last  brought  man  upon 
the  scene.  And  it  is  this,  continued  again  through 
many  ages  by  man  himself,  which  is  developing  step  by 
step  the  super-man  who  is  some  day  destined  to  appear 
as  the  final  achievement  of  the  divine  handiwork. 
Battle,  bloodshed,  slaughter,  destruction  —  these  are 
but  the  methods  of  severing  sheep  from  goats.  Look 
upon  marching  armies,  flaming  cities,  devastated  fields, 
sinking  ships,  ravished  women,  frightened  children,  and 
you  look  only  upon  what  happens  when  God,  as  Julia 
Ward  Howe  has  put  it  in  her  hymn, 

"...  is  sifting  out  the  hearts  of  men  before  his 

judgment  seat." 

Such  is  the  doctrine  of  force,  as  it  has  been  exemplified 
in  all  ages  and  taught  more  or  less  openly  in  some. 
Easy  is  it  to  deduce,  from  this  statement  of  its  general 
content,  the  specific  answers  which  it  gives  to  the  prob- 


22  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

lems  stirred  up  anew,  as  we  have  seen,  by  the  Great 
War. 

In  regard  to  the  problem  of  peace  among  the  nations, 
the  champions  of  this  doctrine  take  attitudes  of  varying 
degrees  of  thoroughness.  Some  declare,  without 
apology  of  any  kind,  that  war  is  not  bad  but  good,  and 
that  a  permanent  state  of  peace,  therefore,  is  to  be 
deprecated  rather  than  welcomed.  Such  an  advocate 
is  General  Bernhardi,  and,  if  we  can  judge  correctly, 
the  entire  militaristic  group  of  the  German  Empire. 
Others  there  are,  like  John  Ruskin *  and  Professor 
Cramb,2  of  Cambridge,  who  recognise  the  hideous  char- 
acter of  war  and  deplore  its  occurrence,  but  believe  that 
war  has  certain  virtues  which  are  unique  to  itself,  and 
to  this  extent,  therefore,  is  to  be  accepted  as  necessary 
and  beneficent.  Then  again,  there  are  men,  numerous 
in  our  country  as  in  others,  who  are  convinced  that 
war  is  wholly  dreadful  and  should  be  done  away  with 
immediately  and  forever,  but  who  believe  that  this  end 
can  never  be  accomplished  save  by  the  development  and 
maintenance  of  weapons  of  force  on  so  stupendous  a 
scale  that  no  one  nation  shall  dare  to  venture  its  ex- 
istence upon  such  a  hazard  as  that  of  declaring  hostili- 
ties. The  variety  of  these  opinions  is  evident.  But 
behind  them  all  is  the  one  idea,  so  central  to  the  doctrine 

1  One  side  of  his  attitude  only.     For  a  description  of  John  Rus- 
kin's  views  see  below,  Chapter  IX,  page  303.     His  ideas  were  of 
course    hopelessly    inconsistent   with   one    another,    as   he   himself 
readily   admitted.     His   feeling   of   utter   detestation   of  war   was 
sound;  his  thought  of  war's  contribution  to  civilisation  a  perfect 
illustration  of  pseudo-knowledge. 

2  See  his  book,  Germany  and  England. 


A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM       23 

of  force,  that  our  ultimate  reliance,  in  this  as  in  other 
problems  of  life,  must  be  upon  the  sword.  One  nation 
may  desire  war  as  a  blessing;  another  may  seek  stead- 
fastly to  avoid  war  as  the  worst  of  curses.  But  both 
nations  alike  must  arm  themselves  to  the  teeth,  and 
use  identically  the  same  weapons  for  the  attainment  of 
their  so  widely  different  ends. 

As  regards  the  problem  of  security,  the  advocates  of 
force  are  somewhat  more  closely  agreed.  There  is  no 
security  possible  in  this  world,  they  assert,  except  that 
which  is  won  and  held  by  main  strength.  We  sleep  in 
our  homes  at  night  with  a  feeling  of  reasonable  security, 
first  because  our  doors  are  locked  and  barred,  and  sec- 
ondly because  there  paces  in  the  street  before  our  dwell- 
ing an  armed  representative  of  the  law.  Were  our 
doors  for  any  reason  thrown  open,  or  the  policeman  for 
any  reason  withdrawn  from  his  post,  we  would  feel  in- 
stantly alarmed  for  the  safety  of  both  property  and 
life.  And  as  with  individuals,  so  with  nations !  We 
may  talk  until  doomsday  about  guaranteeing  national 
security  by  treaties  of  neutrality,  alliance,  or  arbitra- 
tion, or  by  practising  righteousness  and  goodwill  in 
international  relations.  Treaties  of  any  kind,  as  Mr. 
Roosevelt  is  never  tired  of  pointing  out,  are  not  worth 
the  paper  they  are  written  on  unless  backed  by  the 
mailed  fist  and  the  drawn  sword.  The  tragedy  of  Bel- 
gium, terrible  as  it  was,  seemed  almost  worth  while  to  a 
man  of  Mr.  Roosevelt's  views  as  an  immortal  demonstra- 
tion of  this  thesis.  And  as  for  friendship,  goodwill, 
righteousness  —  these  may  be  all  right  in  the  private 


24  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

relations  of  individual  citizens,  but  they  can  avail  abso- 
lutely nothing  in  relations  between  jealous,  suspicious, 
and  hostile  states.  Force  can  alone  save  us  from  de- 
struction. "  Speak  softly  and  carry  a  big  stick  "  is  the 
only  maxim  of  prudence. 

It  is  only  when  we  get  to  our  third  problem,  that  of 
life  itself,  however,  that  we  meet  the  perfect  expression 
of  the  gospel  of  force.  Here  do  we  find  this  doctrine 
raised  to  the  dignity  of  a  new  code  of  morals,  a  new 
revelation  of  religion.  Power  now  becomes  the  great 
possession,  struggle  for  mastery  the  great  activity, 
success  or  victory  the  great  end.  The  good  man  is  de- 
scribed not  as  the  one  who  is  meek,  gentle,  kindly,  sym- 
pathetic, but  as  the  one  who  is  strong,  self-assertive, 
brave,  ruthless  in  his  pursuit  of  ends.  The  bad  man 
is  pictured  not  as  the  one  who  is  mean,  deceitful,  cruel, 
selfish,  but  as  the  one  simply  who  is  weak.  Virtue  here 
becomes  synonymous  with  valour  —  sin  synonymous 
with  humility.  Nietzsche  sums  it  all  up  in  one  of  his 
most  familiar  passages — "What  is  good?  —  all  that 
increases  the  feeling  of  power,  the  will  for  power,  power 
itself  in  man.  What  is  bad  ?  —  all  that  proceeds  from 
weakness.  What  is  happiness  ?  —  the  feeling  that 
power  increases  and  that  resistance  is  overcome.  Not 
contentedness  but  power  —  not  peace  but  war  —  not 
virtue  but  capacity  —  this  is  the  rule  of  life.  The 
weak  shall  perish,  and  people  shall  help  them  to  do  so 
—  this  is  the  first  principle  of  charity.  What  is  the 
worst  of  crimes?  —  sympathy  for  the  weak  and  unfor- 
tunate —  Christianity ! " 


A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM       25 


Opposed  now,  in  every  sense  of  the  word,  to  the  doc- 
trine of  force,  and  presenting  in  its  entirety  the  other 
side,  so  to  speak,  of  the  theory  of  life,  is  what  I  shall 
call,  for  lack  of  a  better  name,  the  doctrine  of  non-re- 
sistance. This  word,  as  we  shall  see,1  is  hopelessly  in- 
accurate, but  it  has  long  since  assumed,  by  reason  of 
historic  usage,  a  distinct  if  not  adequate  connotation, 
and  therefore  must  be  employed. 

At  bottom,  the  doctrine  of  non-resistance,  exactly 
like  the  doctrine  of  force,  is  a  summons  to  battle.  It 
agrees  that  the  life-process  is  an  uninterrupted  struggle 
for  survival  between  contending  organisms.  It  agrees 
as  well  that  this  struggle  began  upon  the  plane  of 
physical  energy,  and  that  the  weapons  of  the  flesh  have 
ever  played  a  potent  part  in  the  determination  of  vic- 
tory. It  denies,  however,  that  the  battle  for  existence 
was  ever  at  any  time  limited  to  the  physical  plane,  in- 
sists that  it  has  again  and  again  been  lifted  to  higher 
levels,  and  points  out  that  other  weapons  than  those  of 
the  flesh  have  long  since  proven  their  superiority. 
Nothing  is  more  impressive,  for  example,  in  the  modern 
study  of  evolution,  than  the  gradual  supplanting  of 
the  struggle  for  self-preservation  by  what  Drummond 
terms  "  the  struggle  for  the  life  of  others."  The  more 
widely  we  extend  our  observation  of  the  biological 
process  of  development,  and  the  higher  we  climb  in  the 
scale  of  animal  life,  the  more  frequently  we  encounter 

i  See  Chapter  IV,  "  What  Non-Resistance  Means." 


26 

"  mutual  aid  "  as  the  determining  factor  of  survival. 
Not  the  claw  of  the  tiger  but  the  love  of  the  tigress 
for  her  cubs,  not  the  mammoth  strength  of  the  ele- 
phant but  his  disciplined  membership  in  the  herd  — 
these  are  the  things  that  really  make  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  species.  "  The  strength  of  the  wolf  is  the 
pack,"  says  Rudyard  Kipling  in  his  Jungle  Book,  "  and 
the  strength  of  the  pack  is  the  wolf."  So  true  is  this, 
indeed,  that  a  long-range  survey  of  the  line  of  evolu- 
tion shows  conclusively  that  the  weaker  animals,  which, 
because  of  their  inadequate  strength,  have  learned  the 
lesson  of  co-operation,  are  the  ones  which  are  winning 
out  in  the  battle  for  life,  and  the  savage  animals,  on 
the  other  hand,  like  the  lion  and  the  bear,  which  rove 
the  jungle  alone  in  the  proud  glory  of  unconquerable 
power,  are  the  very  ones  which  are  losing  and  thus 
gradually  disappearing.  Physical  force,  in  other 
words,  is  for  some  reason  or  other  showing  itself  to  be 
a  failure  in  the  struggle  for  survival. 

And  what  is  merely  suggested  here  in  the  animal 
realm,  is  triumphantly  indicated  in  the  life  of  man. 
For  man,  whatever  his  physical  relationship  to  the  brute 
creatures  from  which  he  sprang,  must  be  described,  in 
the  last  analysis,  not  as  a  physical  but  rather  as  a 
spiritual  being.  With  his  appearance  upon  the  earth, 
life  at  once  moves  to  a  loftier  plane  and  seeks  to  adapt 
itself  to  a  nobler  standard  of  activity.  If  the  law  of 
existence  for  the  animal  is  the  law  of  force,  then,  as 
Huxley  declared  in  his  famous  Romanes  Lecture,  this 
law  is  overthrown  by  man  in  favour  of  a  law  of  his  own 


A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM       27 

discovery  or  creation  —  the  law  of  love.  Or,  if  this 
higher  law,  as  John  Fiske  and  others  have  declared,  has 
already  appeared  in  the  field  of  animal  existence  and  has 
there  competed  for  supremacy  with  the  law  of  sheer 
brute  strength,  then  this  higher  law  is  deliberately 
chosen  by  man  for  the  practice  of  his  life  to  the  total 
exclusion  of  the  other,  and  spirit  is  forthwith  pitted  in 
a  death  grapple  with  flesh  for  the  mastery  of  the  human 
soul.  The  whole  story  of  humanity,  from  this  point 
of  view,  becomes  an  exciting  romance  of  the  persistent 
endeavour  of  the  race  to  rid  itself  of  force  and  possess 
itself  of  love,  as  the  one  all-sufficient  weapon  of  advance. 
And  history,  if  it  teaches  us  anything  with  precision, 
certainly  teaches  that  man  strengthens  his  hold  on  life, 
rises  in  the  scale  of  existence,  wins  peace,  security  and 
happiness  for  his  reward,  just  to  the  extent  that  he  suc- 
ceeds in  this  one  supreme  endeavour  of  the  soul. 

It  is  this  fact  which  is  set  forth  with  such  compelling 
power  by  the  prophets  of  all  ages,  both  ancient  and 
modern,  who  have  discerned  with  clear  vision  the  truths 
of  the  spirit  and  have  formulated  these  truths  into  a 
wondrous  gospel  of  love,  service,  sacrifice  and  goodwill. 
From  no  great  teacher  of  ethics  and  religion  have  these 
things  been  hidden;  by  every  great  teacher  have  they 
been  translated  into  noble  gospels  of  human  brother- 
hood. But  supreme  among  all  these  seers  of  "  things 
invisible  "  must  be  counted  Jesus,  the  brave  carpenter 
of  Nazareth,  who,  in  a  time  which  rang  with  the  crash 
of  arms  and  among  a  people  who  had  long  been  trod- 
den into  the  dust  under  the  iron  heel  of  conquest,  dared 


28  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

to  lift  his  voice  on  behalf  of  the  most  consistent,  thor- 
oughgoing and  uncompromising  gospel  of  non-resistance 
that  the  world  has  ever  seen.  "  They  that  take  the 
sword  shall  perish  with  the  sword  —  resist  not  evil,  but 
whosoever  shall  smite  thee  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to 
him  the  other  also  —  ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been 
said,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  and  hate  thine 
enemy.  But  I  say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies,  bless 
them  that  curse  you,  do  good  to  them  that  hate  you, 
and  pray  for  them  that  despitefully  use  you  and  perse- 
cute you  —  all  things  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men 
should  do  to  you,  do  you  even  so  unto  them  —  he  that 
findeth  his  life  shall  lose  it,  but  he  that  loseth  his  life 
for  my  sake  shall  find  it " —  these  are  the  words  he 
spoke  in  eternal  challenge  of  every  doctrine  of  life 
which  would  place  reliance,  for  any  purpose,  under  any 
conditions,  upon  the  use  of  violence,  force  or  aggression 
of  any  kind.  Jesus  saw  clearly  enough  that  life  was  a 
struggle.  He  himself  followed  no  easy  path,  and  at 
last  went  down  in  defeat  before  his  enemies.  But  he 
insisted  in  his  preaching,  and  demonstrated  in  his 
practice,  that  this  struggle,  for  man  at  least,  was  a 
struggle  not  for  physical  survival  but  for  spiritual  ful- 
filment ;  and  urged,  therefore,  upon  all  those  who  would 
truly  live,  the  one  great  end  of  love. 

Such  in  meagrest  outline  is  the  doctrine  of  non-re- 
sistance! That  it  is  the  exact  antithesis  in  every  par- 
ticular of  the  doctrine  of  force  must  be  evident  even 
from  such  a  summary  interpretation  as  this  which  is 
set  down  in  the  above  paragraphs.  We  need  not  be 


A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM       29 

surprised,  therefore,  to  discover  that,  in  its  answers  to 
the  problems  of  the  Great  War,  which  we  have  more 
than  once  considered,  it  challenges  the  doctrine  of  force 
on  each  and  every  issue. 

Thus,  as  regards  the  question  of  peace,  the  non-re- 
sistant asserts,  without  qualification  or  equivocation  of 
any  kind,  that  war  is  the  sum  of  all  villainies  and  peace 
the  sum  of  all  blessings.  He  believes  that  war  may 
have  its  benefits,  as  peace  may  have  its  ills ;  but  that 
benefits  and  ills  are  incidental  to  the  main  factors  in 
the  situation,  which,  in  the  case  of  war,  are  wholly  bad, 
and,  in  the  case  of  peace,  are  wholly  good.  Peace  has 
never  brought  harm  to  any  individual  or  group  of  indi- 
viduals ;  war,  on  the  other  hand,  has  never  brought  any- 
thing else.  The  highest  ideal  of  organised  humanity, 
therefore,  must  be  the  establishment  of  "  peace  on 
earth,  good  will  toward  men."  So  long  as  war  con- 
tinues under  any  form,  or  for  any  purpose,  the  race 
must  fall  far  short  of  the  fulfilment  of  its  "  one  true 
aim." 

But  the  non-resistant  does  not  stop  with  this  un- 
qualified endorsement  of  peace  as  a  permanent  condition 
of  human  good.  On  the  contrary,  he  goes  on  to  point 
out,  with  great  definiteness,  the  method  for  attaining 
his  ideal.  This  is  none  other  than  that  of  preparing 
for  peace,  by  putting  one  side  forever  the  weapons  of 
war  and  building  diligently  and  seriously  the  social 
mechanism  expressive  of  ordered  knowledge,  sound 
reason,  and  truthful  friendship.  To  seek  peace  by  pre- 
paring for  war,  says  the  non-resistant,  is  the  rankest 


30  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

absurdity,  demonstrated  by  the  failure  of  any  people 
in  any  period  of  history  to  find  the  peace  thus  sought. 
There  has  been  the  peace  attained  by  Rome  —  the  Pax 
Romanum  —  which  is  the  obedience  dictated  to  a  help- 
less world  by  the  iron  rod  of  conquest.  There  has  been 
the  peace  pictured  so  vividly  by  Tacitus,  when  he  de- 
scribed the  legionaries  of  the  Imperial  City  as  "  making 
a  desolation  and  calling  it  peace."  There  has  been  the 
peace,  dictated  by  treaties  and  assured  by  balances  of 
power,  which  is  an  armed  truce  between  the  close  of 
one  war  and  the  opening  of  another.  But  the  true 
peace,  described  by  Isaiah  as  a  time  when  "  nation  shall 
not  lift  up  sword  against  nation,  neither  shall  they 
learn  war  any  more,"  has  never  come  for  the  simple 
reason  that  men  have  never  had  the  wisdom  nor  the 
courage  to  adopt  the  one  true  method  to  this  end  — 
that  of  "  beating  their  swords  into  ploughshares  and 
their  spears  into  pruning  hooks." 

To  the  problem  of  security,  the  non-resistant  gives 
much  the  same  answer  that  he  gives  to  the  problem  of 
peace.  Man  desires  security  as  he  desires  peace ;  but 
he  fails  to  attain  the  one,  just  as  he  fails  to  attain  the 
other,  for  the  reason  that  he  seeks  security  by  the 
methods  that  create  insecurity,  just  as  he  seeks  peace 
by  the  methods  that  create  war.  The  bolted  door  and 
the  armed  policeman,  you  say,  are  the  evidences  of  se- 
curity !  On  the  contrary,  they  are  the  evidences  of  in- 
security. No  man  feels  himself  safe  behind  such  bar- 
riers. Bolts  and  bars  are  indefinitely  multiplied,  the 
city  police  are  supplemented  by  private  watchmen, 


A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM        31 

loaded  revolvers  are  kept  in  bureau  drawers  and  under 
pillows,  intricate  systems  of  automatic  alarm  are  in- 
stalled at  great  expense  —  with  the  result  that  security 
is  as  far  away  as  ever.  And  what  is  true  of  the  indi- 
vidual is  equally  true  also  of  the  nation!  The  vast 
armaments  of  our  time  are  evidences  not  of  security  but 
of  fear.  Ship  is  added  to  ship,  fortress  to  fortress, 
army  corps  to  army  corps  —  and  still  the  fear  grows, 
until  at  last  in  a  very  madness  of  mutual  apprehension, 
the  Great  War  bursts  upon  the  world.  If  the  colossal 
armaments  of  this  age  could  not  win  and  hold  security 
for  any  one  of  the  great  peoples  involved,  what  arma- 
ments, pray,  can  be  huge  and  terrible  enough  to  attain 
this  end? 

The  fact  of  the  matter  is,  of  course,  as  the  non-re- 
sistant has  all  along  pointed  out,  that  the  appeal  to 
force  is  the  cause  and  not  the  cure  of  fear,  the  occasion 
and  not  the  end  of  insecurity.  Security,  at  the  best 
precarious  in  this  uncertain  world,  can  be  won,  if  at  all, 
in  only  one  way.  Let  the  individual  be  patient,  for- 
bearing, sympathetic,  kind  to  his  neighbours  —  let  the 
nation  practise  justice,  righteousness,  goodwill  in  its 
relations  with  all  foreign  peoples  —  and  all  the  security 
that  the  world  can  give  will  thereby  be  attained.  To 
arm  is  to  raise  up  arms  against  you  —  to  be  suspicious 
is  to  generate  suspicion  —  to  prepare  for  contingencies 
is  to  create  those  same  contingencies.  To  disarm  your- 
self, however,  is  to  disarm  your  neighbour  —  to  trust  is 
to  be  trusted  —  to  be  peaceful  is  to  win  peace.  "  As 
ye  sow,  so  shall  ye  reap."  And  if  perchance,  by  acci- 


32  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

dent  or  crime,  peril  sweeps  down  upon  you,  then,  for 
individual  and  nation  alike,  it  is  always  possible  to  die. 
No  one  of  us  is  under  any  obligation  to  live.  Indeed, 
it  is  the  crowning  belief  of  the  non-resistant  that  to  live 
by  breaking  the  highest  laws  of  life  is  infinitely  worse 
than  death. 

This  lofty  assertion  of  idealism  brings  us  at  once  to 
the  non-resistant's  answer  to  the  whole  great  question 
of  life  itself.  Physical  survival,  so  important,  as  we 
have  seen,  to  the  champion  of  force,  here  becomes  of  in- 
significance. The  passion  for  self-preservation  is  his- 
torically the  most  primitive,  and  ethically  the  lowest,  of 
all  vital  instincts.  Long  since  has  the  law  of  survival, 
in  every  system  of  individual  morality,  been  superseded 
by  the  law  of  sacrifice.  Not  to  live  but  to  love,  not 
to  save  ourselves  but  to  save  others,  not  to  survive  at 
any  cost  but  to  die  for  any  cause  —  this  is  the  standard 
by  which  we  gauge  our  conduct.  Calvary  still  stands 
as  the  noblest  symbol  of  the  soul.  And  what  is  true  of 
the  individual,  is  true  also  of  the  nation.  No  more 
here  than  anywhere  else  can  there  be  tolerated  a  double 
standard  of  morals.  The  martyr  nation  is  as  sublime, 
and  may  be  as  necessary,  as  the  martyr  hero.  Jesus's 
message  was  to  nations  as  well  as  to  men,  when  he  laid 
down  the  laws  of  blessedness  — "  Blessed  are  the  poor 
in  spirit,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  .  .  . 
Blessed  are  the  meek,  for  they  shall  inherit  the  earth. 
Blessed  are  they  which  do  hunger  and  thirst  after 
righteousness,  for  they  shall  be  filled.  Blessed  are  the 
merciful  for  they  shall  obtain  mercy.  .  .  .  Blessed  are 


A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM        38 

the  peacemakers,  for  they  shall  be  called  the  children  of 
God." 

VI 

Here,  now,  is  a  survey  of  the  whole  problem  of  pacif- 
ism which  is  presented  to  us  for  discussion.  What  is 
outlined  in  this  chapter  I  propose  to  amplify  at  length 
in  the  chapters  which  follow.  My  purpose  is  to  state 
the  case  for  pacifism  in  terms  of  force  versus  non-re- 
sistance. I  shall  try  to  say  all  that  can  be  said  for  this 
sublime  and  much-maligned  ideal,  as  fairly  and  yet  as 
fully  as  possible.  My  mind  is  by  no  means  closed  upon 
the  subject.  I  am  conscious  of  no  over-weening  am- 
bition to  force  this  interpretation  of  life  upon  unwilling 
minds.  I  certainly  am  not  eager  to  be  dubbed  a 
pacifist  or  a  non-resistant,  as  either  title  is  a  hope- 
less travesty.  In  a  time,  however,  when  reliance  upon 
the  methods  and  the  ideals  of  brute  force  has  involved 
the  world  in  the  most  frightful  disaster  of  history,  and 
men,  all  unmindful  of  the  lesson,  are  still  urging  us  to 
push  on  faster  and  farther  in  the  same  old  way  to  the 
same  old  end,  I  feel  that  there  is  need  for  a  statement, 
however  feeble,  of  the  other  side  of  the  case. 

In  offering  this  statement,  in  the  uncompromising 
form  here  adopted,  I  am  perfectly  well  aware  of  the 
fact  that  I  am  exposing  myself  to  the  charge  of  folly. 
"  You  are  only  wasting  your  time  and  strength,"  is  the 
word  which  has  already  come  to  me,  "  for  it  must  be  as 
evident  to  you  as  to  anybody  else  that  there  is  not  one 
man  in  a  million  who  takes  any  stock  in  the  principle  of 


34  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

non-resistance,  and  not  one  chance  in  a  million  that 
this  idea  will  ever  be  accepted  by  the  majority  of  men 
in  the  future.  Why  not  turn  aside  from  conceptions 
which,  however  ideal  in  themselves,  are  futile,  and  do 
what  you  can  to  discover  and  commend  to  men  those 
things  which  may  be  useful  right  here  and  now  for  '  the 
healing  of  the  nations  '  ?  " 

To  such  a  charge  as  this,  I  beg  to  offer  two  replies. 

The  first  is  the  reply  dictated  by  the  unchanged  and 
unchangeable  idealism  of  the  human  heart.  It  is  the 
reply  which  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson  gave  to  this  very 
charge  in  his  non-resistant  Lecture  on  War,  when  he 
said,  "  We  never  take  much  account  of  objections  which 
merely  respect  the  actual  state  of  the  world,  but  which 
admit  the  permanent  excellence  of  the  project.  What 
is  the  best  must  be  the  true,  and  what  is  true  must  at 
last  prevail  over  all  obstruction  and  opposition."  It  is 
the  reply  to  the  same  charge,  expressed  in  more  general 
terms,  by  John  Morley,  in  his  Essay  on  Compromise, 
where  he  says,  "  In  the  formation  of  an  opinion  as  to 
the  truth  or  falsehood  or  right  significance  of  a  proposi- 
tion, we  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  circumstance  that 
it  is  not  practicable.  We  must  have  the  best  opinion, 
even  if  we  know  that  this  opinion  has  an  infinitely  small 
chance  of  being  speedily  or  ever  accepted  by  the  ma- 
jority, or  by  anybody  but  ourselves."  It  is  the  great 
reply  given  by  Leo  Tolstoi,  in  his  Confessions,  when  he 
tells  about  his  experience  of  witnessing  the  execution  of 
a  criminal  in  Paris.  "  When  I  saw  the  head  divided 
from  the  body,"  says  the  great  Russian,  "  and  heard 


A  STATEMENT  OF  THE  PROBLEM        35 

the  sound  with  which  it  fell  separately  into  the  box,  I 
understood  that  no  theory  of  the  wisdom  of  all  estab- 
lished things,  nor  of  progress,  could  justify  such  an 
act ;  and  that  if  all  the  men  in  the  world  from  the  day 
of  creation,  by  whatever  theory,  had  found  this  thing 
necessary,  I  knew  that  it  was  not  necessary,  that  it  was 
a  bad  thing;  and  that  therefore  I  must  judge  of  what 
was  right  and  necessary,  not  by  what  men  said  and  did, 
not  by  progress,  but  by  what  I  felt  to  be  true  in  my 
heart." 

This  may  well  be  considered  in  itself  an  all-sufficient 
reply  to  any  charge  of  futility  against  the  advocacy  of 
idealism.  But  there  is  a  second  reply,  dictated  in  this 
particular  case  by  the  conditions  of  the  times.  The 
counsel  of  non-resistance  has  hitherto  fallen  upon  the 
ears  of  a  heedless  world.  But  is  it  certain  that  this 
must  ever  be  its  fate?  For  centuries  the  gospel  of  force 
has  been  practised  with  unremitting  fidelity,  and  the  re- 
sult is  one  long  uninterrupted  record  of  devastation, 
bloodshed,  misery,  and  death.  It  has  been  estimated 
that  fourteen  hundred  billions  of  human  beings  have 
been  killed  in  war  since  history  began  —  enough  mortals 
to  populate  eighteen  planets  like  the  earth  on  the  pres- 
ent basis  of  population.  How  much  wealth  has  been 
destroyed  by  the  same  process  is  probably  beyond  all 
bounds  of  calculation.  How  many  kingdoms  have  risen 
only  to  fall,  how  many  peoples  have  prospered  only  to 
be  destroyed,  how  many  civilisations  have  flourished 
only  to  be  swept  away,  by  this  same  fell  method  of  life, 
the  pages  of  history  only  too  impressively  record. 


86  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

And  now,  behold,  in  this  latest  period  of  human  prog- 
ress, a  more  widely-extended,  more  destructive,  and 
more  cruel  war,  than  mankind  has  ever  known  before! 
Is  it  not  possible,  that,  under  the  stress  of  such  an 
agony  of  woe  as  weighs  upon  men's  hearts  to-day,  their 
minds  may  at  last  be  prepared  for  the  hearing,  if  not 
the  immediate  practice,  of  the  gospel  of  non-resistance? 
Having  found  the  way  of  force  to  be  the  path  "  that 
leadeth  to  destruction,"  may  not  men  be  ready  at  least 
to  consider  the  alternative  way  of  love?  Defeated, 
baffled,  wasted,  face  to  face  with  death,  may  they  not 
heed  the  prophet  voices,  and  mayhap  try  a  plan  of 
action  which,  at  the  worst,  cannot  bring  a  greater  tide 
of  woe  upon  the  world  than  has  already  come? 

Such  at  least  is  my  hope,  as  I  prepare  this  new 
statement  of  an  ancient  gospel.  The  failure  of  modern 
civilisation  in  our  time  has  sobered  us,  shocked  us,  set 
us  to  thinking  on  new  lines.  We  are  ready,  as  per- 
haps never  before,  to  see  a  new  vision  of  truth,  to  try  a 
new  way  of  life.  Hence  the  wisdom  of  appealing  once 
again  to  the  mighty  words  of  old  — "  Behold,  I  will 
save  my  people  by  the  Lord  their  God.  I  will  not  save 
them  by  the  bow  nor  by  the  sword  nor  by  battle,  by 
horses  nor  by  horsemen.  .  .  .  But  I  will  make  war  to 
cease.  I  will  break  the  bow,  and  cut  the  spear  in  sun- 
der ;  and  burn  the  chariots  in  the  fire.  ...  I  will  speak 
peace  unto  the  nations." 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  LOGIC  OF  FORCE 


"  Error  has  its  logic  as  well  as  truth.  Once  you  reject  the  po- 
litical action  of  the  working  class,  you  are  fatally  driven  ...  to 
accept  the  tactics  of  the  Vaillants  and  the  Henrys."  1 —  George 
Plechanoff,  in  Anarchism  and  Socialism. 


i  August  Vaillant  was  the  terrorist  who  attempted  in  1892  to 
blow  up  with  dynamite  the  French  Chamber  of  Deputies,  fimile 
Henry  was  the  terrorist  who  avenged  Vaillant  by  blowing  up  the 
caf6  of  the  Hotel  Terminus  in  Paris. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE    LOGIC    OF    FOBCE 


AT  first  sight  it  may  seem  as  though  the  whole  weight 
of  the  argument  on  this  question  of  non-resistance 
were  on  the  side  of  the  opponents  of  the  doctrine.  The 
burden  of  proof,  as  it  is  called,  is  assuredly  on  the 
shoulders  of  the  man  who  would  contend  that  the 
problems  of  life  can  be  met  and  solved  without  resort 
to  force  of  any  kind.  If  there  is  any  presumption  in 
the  case  at  all,  it  is  against  him  rather  than  for  him. 

A  closer  examination  of  the  problem,  however,  is 
certain,  I  believe,  to  upset  this  original  impression. 
Not  the  advocate  of  non-resistance  but  the  advocate  of 
force,  is  the  one  who  is  on  the  defensive  at  the  start, 
and  the  one  therefore  who  is  laden  with  the  burden  of 
proving  his  case.  Ask  the  average  man  if  he  believes 
in  the  use  of  force  for  the  settlement  of  practical  diffi- 
culties, and  see  how  eagerly  he  will  repudiate  such  an 
idea.  Confront  the  average  man  with  an  outbreak  of 
violence  and  bloodshed,  and  see  how  quickly  he  will  de- 
nounce it  and  call  for  its  suppression.  A  fight  be- 
tween two  neighbours,  a  brawl  between  gangs  of  hood- 
lums in  the  slums,  a  beating  up  of  a  burglar  by  a  po- 
liceman, a  lynching  of  a  Negro  criminal  in  the  South, 

a  riot  between  strikers  and  strike-breakers,  a  civil  war 

39 


40 

in  Mexico,  an  international  war  in  Europe  —  all  these 
episodes  of  violence  are  at  once  denounced  by  public 
opinion  as  wrong  on  the  face  of  things.  There  may 
have  been  a  time  when  the  use  of  force  in  such  ways  as 
these  was  regarded  as  right  on  general  principles,  but 
to-day  such  use,  by  either  an  individual  or  a  nation, 
must  be  shown  to  be  justified  by  very  definite  and  un- 
usual conditions,  if  it  is  not  to  be  condemned  as  an  un- 
pardonable offence  against  the  social  order. 

When  we  turn  to  the  ideal  set  forth  by  the  non-re- 
sistants, however,  we  find  the  situation  exactly  re- 
versed. The  great  majority  of  persons  agree,  with- 
out argument  of  any  kind,  that  the  works  of  gentleness, 
mercy,  goodwill,  are  wholly  beneficent.  Nobody  seeks 
justification,  by  appeal  to  special  circumstances  and 
conditions,  for  the  use  of  reason  in  the  settlement  of 
difficulties,  and  the  employment  of  love  in  the  allaying 
of  violence.  These  things  justify  themselves.  They 
need  no  explanation  and  call  for  no  defence.  To  love 
one's  neighbour,  to  serve  him  in  his  need,  to  forgive  him 
in  his  wrath,  to  pity  him  in  his  sin,  is  the  natural,  the 
normal,  the  human  way  of  living.  To  hate,  despise, 
injure,  kill  one's  neighbour,  is  the  unnatural,  abnormal, 
inhuman  way  of  living.  Significant  is  it  to  note  that, 
when  St.  Paul  names  "  the  fruit  of  the  spirit,"  which 
is  "  love,  j  oy,  peace,  longsuffering,  gentleness,  good- 
ness, faith,  meekness,  temperance,"  in  contrast  with 
"  the  works  of  the  flesh,"  which  are  "  adultery  .  .  . 
idolatry  .  .  .  hatred,  variance,  emulations,  wrath, 
strife,  seditions,  envy  ings,  murders  .  .  .  and  such 


41 

like,"  he  takes  particular  pains  to  point  out  that 
against  the  former  "  there  is  no  law."  By  which  he 
very  plainly  means  to  infer  that  the  works  of  the  flesh 
are  under  condemnation  unless  acquitted  by  special 
trial  of  law,  whereas  the  fruits  of  the  spirit  stand  of 
themselves,  "  honest,  just,  pure,  lovely,  and  of  good  re- 
port." 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  burden  of  proof  in 
this  contention  is  upon  those  who  would  use  force 
under  any  circumstances  and  not  upon  those  who 
would  try,  under  all  circumstances,  to  use  the  gentler 
methods  of  sweet  reasonableness  and  goodwill.  Force, 
in  other  words,  is  a  principle  so  dangerous  in  operation 
and  so  destructive  in  result  that  men  have  long  since 
come  to  agree  together  that  its  employment  must  be  re- 
stricted within  the  narrowest  possible  limitations.  It 
is  like  poison,  which  can  be  used  only  by  physicians  for 
certain  very  specific  medicinal  purposes.  It  is  like 
fire-arms  which  can  be  carried  only  by  persons  who 
have  been  duly  licensed  by  the  city  for  special  reasons. 
It  is  like  dynamite,  which  can  be  transported  through 
the  streets  only  in  certain  quantities,  at  certain  times, 
in  certain  ways,  and  for  certain  ends.  Anybody  who 
desires  to  use  poison,  carry  fire-arms,  or  handle  dyna- 
mite is  at  once  on  the  defensive.  He  must  show  cause 
for  his  desire,  and  justify  this  cause  beyond  all  man- 
ner of  doubt,  before  he  can  be  permitted  to  proceed. 
And  so  also  with  the  use  of  force !  This  is  universally 
regarded  as  so  perilous  in  all  cases,  and  so  wrong  in 
most  cases,  that  it  is  forbidden  in  general  terms  both 


42  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

by  the  statutes  of  the  state  and  the  precepts  of  re- 
ligion. "Against  such  there  is  (the)  law!"  It  is 
commonly  agreed  that  there  may  very  likely  appear 
from  time  to  time  certain  particular  conditions,  such 
as  the  burglary  of  a  house  or  the  invasion  of  a  nation, 
which  make  resort  to  force  unavoidable,  and  the  law 
therefore  of  none  effect.  But  the  presumption  is  al- 
ways against  such  conditions ;  and  they  must  be  estab- 
lished beyond  question  before  a  verdict  of  acquittal 
can  be  rendered. 

The  question  as  to  whether  the  use  of  force  can  ever 
be  regarded  as  unavoidable  and  as  a  consequence  justi- 
fiable, raises  at  once,  of  course,  the  whole  issue  of  non- 
resistance,  and  will  therefore  be  discussed  at  great 
length  as  our  argument  proceeds.  Assuming  for  the 
moment  that  there  may  exist  conditions  which  seem  to 
make  necessary  the  lifting  of  the  ban  against  physical 
violence,  I  desire  at  this  point  to  ask  if  such  violence, 
once  let  loose,  can  be  kept  within  the  limits  of  these 
conditions?  Granting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
there  may  be  a  certain  restricted  area  within  which 
force  may  justifiably  be  employed,  I  want  to  inquire  if 
such  force,  when  liberated  in  this  area,  can  by  any  pos- 
sibility be  prevented  from  leaping  the  barriers  imposed, 
and  working  unforeseeable  havoc  in  remoter  areas 
where  it  does  not  belong  and  where  it  should  never  be 
allowed  to  enter?  Do  we  realise,  in  other  words,  how 
perilous  the  use  of  force  really  is,  and  how  easily,  there- 
fore, even  under  the  most  carefully  guarded  conditions, 
it  may  sweep  beyond  control? 


THE  LOGIC  OF  FORCE  43 

An  experience  of  my  boyhood,  which  remains  as 
vividly  impressed  upon  my  mind  to-day  as  though  it 
took  place  yesterday,  may  be  offered  here,  perhaps,  as 
an  interpretation  in  parable  form  of  the  idea  which  I 
am  trying  to  suggest.  One  day,  early  in  the  spring  of 
my  ninth  or  tenth  year,  I  was  playing  with  some  lads 
of  my  acquaintance  in  an  open  field,  which  was  covered 
by  a  heavy  growth  of  long,  dry  grass.  One  of  us  sug- 
gested, in  a  moment  of  idleness,  that  it  would  be  "  great 
fun  "  to  set  fire  to  the  stubble,  and  have  a  conflagra- 
tion. How  it  happened  that  such  heedless  youngsters 
had  any  thought  of  danger  in  such  a  proceeding  I  can- 
not imagine,  but  as  a  matter  of  history  it  is  necessary 
to  record  that  some  one  of  us  suggested  that  such  a 
fire  might  get  away  from  us  and  that  it  would  be  well 
therefore  to  make  some  endeavour  to  keep  our  blaze 
within  bounds.  In  the  most  serious  way  in  the  world, 
therefore,  we  boys  set  vigorously  to  work  with  spades, 
shovels,  sticks  and  other  implements  to  dig  a  series  of 
trenches,  which  should  enclose  in  a  rough  square  some 
two  or  three  hundred  square  feet  of  ground.  Here, 
now,  was  our  prairie,  which  was  to  be  devoured  in 
flames,  and  here  were  our  rivers  which  were  to  stop  the 
blaze.  Nothing  could  be  better,  and  in  a  few  moments 
a  match  was  lit  and  the  dry  grass  was  burning.  But 
alas !  how  little  we  understood  the  peril  of  fire,  and  the 
folly  of  expecting  to  keep  it  within  the  bounds  which 
we  had  so  carefully  imposed !  For  the  grass  was  long 
and  dry,  the  trenches  were  narrow  and  poorly  dug,  a 
good  breeze  was  blowing  from  the  east  and  before  we 


44  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

could  so  much  as  snatch  a  coat  to  beat  out  the  flames, 
the  blaze  was  sweeping  on  through  the  field,  straight 
toward  a  large  wooden  stable,  filled  with  horses,  and  a 
little  group  of  frame  houses  just  beyond.  Frightened 
boys,  shouts,  screams,  running  men,  buckets  of  water, 
an  alarm  of  fire,  engines,  firemen,  hose  — -  these  were 
the  rapid  succession  of  events  in  our  playground.  And 
to  this  day,  I  imagine,  there  are  a  dozen  or  more  grown 
men  who  cherish,  as  I  do,  the  unextinguishable  griev- 
ance against  the  world,  that  the  careful  and  laborious 
endeavours  which  these  boys  had  made  to  keep  their 
prairie  fire  within  bounds  were  never  praised  or  even 
acknowledged ! 

Here,  now,  as  I  have  said,  is  a  kind  of  parable  on  the 
unforeseen  results  of  appeal  to  arms  on  any  question. 
There  is  a  power  in  physical  force,  as  in  fire,  which, 
when  once  liberated,  sweeps  away  all  the  restrictions 
which  may  be  raised  against  it.  There  is  a  logic  in 
force,  a  kind  of  fatalism,  if  you  will,  which  makes  the 
descent  into  Avernus  not  only  easy,  but  inevitable. 
Once  agree  that  the  use  of  force  is  necessary  and  there- 
fore can  be  justified  under  certain  conditions,  and  lo, 
before  you  realise  it,  you  are  moving  steadily  on  from 
step  to  step,  from  stage  to  stage,  and  at  last  are  justi- 
fying the  use  of  force  under  all  conditions.  Not  non- 
resistance,  as  is  so  commonly  asserted,  but  force,  how- 
ever narrowly  restricted,  is  the  straight  road  to  an- 
archy ! 


THE  LOGIC  OF  FORCE  45 


In  order  to  understand  just  what  this  logic  of  force 
really  means,  it  will  be  necessary  to  consider,  first  of 
all,  what  are  the  special  conditions  which  are  generally 
accepted  to-day  as  justifying  the  use  of  force.  These 
conditions,  when  all  extraneous  and  unwarranted  ex- 
cuses for  violence  are  eliminated,  are  two  in  number. 

The  first  condition  is  laid  down  with  great  clearness 
in  a  statement  by  Prof.  Rauschenbusch  in  his  remark- 
able book  entitled  Christianising  Hie  Social  Order. 
Discussing  the  industrial  troubles  of  our  time,  and  es- 
pecially the  violence  which  is  constantly  breaking  out 
in  the  strife  between  capital  and  labour,  Prof.  Raus- 
chenbusch asserts,  "  I  do  not  hold  that  the  use  of  force 
against  oppression  can  always  be  condemned  as  wrong. 
The  test  of  brute  strength  is  the  ultima  ratio  when  all 
higher  arguments  have  proved  vain.  The  great  Roman 
historian,  Livy,  expressed  the  general  conviction, 
'  War  is  just  for  those  for  whom  it  is  necessary,  and 
arms  are  holy  for  those  to  whom  no  hope  is  left  except 
in  arms.' ' 

A  study  of  this  defence  of  force,  as  a  weapon  of 
progress,  shows  at  once  that  it  involves  two  definite 
propositions.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  declared  that 
force  is  justified  when  men  are  suffering  from  oppres- 
sion. This  oppression  may  be  oppression  of  the  body, 
as  in  the  case  of  chattel  slavery.  It  may  be  oppression 
of  the  mind,  as  in  the  case  of  the  denial  of  free 
thought  and  free  speech.  It  may  be  oppression  of  the 


46  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

soul,  as  in  the  case  of  religious  persecution.  It  may 
be  general  social  oppression,  as  in  the  case  of  political 
and  military  tyranny.  But  whatever  the  particular 
kind  of  oppression,  it  is  equally  intolerable ;  and  wher- 
ever it  is  found  to  exist,  all  men,  especially  those  suf- 
fering from  its  burdens,  are  justified  in  using  force  to 
destroy  it.  It  is  this  doctrine,  is  it  not,  which  is  laid 
down  in  the  American  Declaration  of  Independence? 
Here  it  is  announced,  in  immortal  phrase,  that  all  men 
are  entitled  to  "  certain  inalienable  rights,"  that  among 
these  are  "  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness," 
and  that  when  these  are  denied  to,  or  alienated  from, 
men,  these  men  are  justified  in  taking  up  arms  on  be- 
half of  freedom.  "  Prudence  will  dictate,"  says  the 
Declaration,  "  that  governments  long  established 
should  not  be  changed  for  light  causes  —  and  accord- 
ingly all  experience  hath  shown  that  mankind  is  more 
disposed  to  suffer,  while  evils  are  sufferable,  than  to 
right  themselves  by  abolishing  the  forms  to  which  they 
are  accustomed.  But  when  a  long  train  of  abuses  and 
usurpations  evinces  a  design  to  reduce  them  under  ab- 
solute despotism,  it  is  their  right  to  throw  off  such 
government  and  provide  new  guards  for  their  future 
security." 

But  there  is  a  second  proposition  laid  down  in  Prof. 
Rauschenbusch's  statement.  Not  only  must  a  state  of 
oppression  be  known  to  exist,  if  force  is  to  be  justly 
used,  but  all  other  ways  and  means  of  securing  libera- 
tion must  be  tried  before  resort  is  made  to  arms.  Men 
suffering  under  oppression  must  appeal  to  their  op- 


THE  LOGIC  OF  FORCE  47 

pressors  for  emancipation ;  they  must  define  their 
grievances  and  specify  their  desires ;  they  must  petition, 
protest,  agitate;  they  must  plead,  persuade,  pray. 
But  when  they  have  done  everything  that  can  be  done 
—  when  their  petitions  have  been  denied,  their  prayers 
flouted,  and  their  agitations  suppressed  —  when  they 
have  endured,  suffered  and  died  to  no  effect  —  then 
at  last  may  they  appeal  to  the  arbitrament  of  arms. 
"  Patience,  .  .  .  smiling  at  grief "  is  a  noble  monu- 
ment "  for  the  dead,  but  it  is  an  impossible  model  for 
the  living.  If  men  would  live  in  joy  and  not  die  in 
shame,  they  must  again  and  again  strike  their  tyrants 
to  the  dust  with  that  one  weapon  of  revolt  which  these 
tyrants  can  alone  understand.  "  When  all  higher  argu- 
ments have  proved  vain,"  then  may  "  the  test  of  brute 
strength  "  take  its  rightful  place  as  "  the  ultima  ratio." 
By  such  doctrine  have  the  liberties  of  the  race  been 
won ;  by  such  doctrine  are  these  liberties  now  main- 
tained. 

An  illustration  of  this  apparent  justification  of  force 
is  seen  in  the  American  Revolution,  which  reveals  with 
perfect  clearness  both  the  propositions  here  involved. 
There  can  be  no  question,  of  course,  as  to  the  condi- 
tions of  oppression  which  existed  in  the  thirteen  col- 
onies in  1775.  The  Declaration  of  Independence  makes 
no  less  than  twenty-seven  specifications  of  "  injuries, 
usurpations  and  oppressions,"  as  they  are  termed. 
For  eight  years,  from  the  close  of  the  French  and  In- 
dian Wars  to  the  outbreak  of  the  Revolution  itself,  the 
American  colonists  suffered  under  the  tyrannical  ex- 


4-8  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

actions  of  the  government  of  George  III,  and  here  in 
the  Declaration  do  we  find  a  dictated  statement  of  just 
what  these  exactions  were.  Surely,  if  ever  there  was  a 
condition  of  intolerable  political  oppression,  it  was 
here. 

And  the  second  condition  of  Prof.  Rauschenbusch's 
defence  of  force  is  equally  well  illustrated  by  the  Revo- 
lution. Not  only  did  oppression  exist,  but  every  rea- 
sonable endeavor  had  been  tried  by  the  colonists  to  se- 
cure release  from  these  oppressions.  They  had  sent 
petitions  to  the  Commons ;  they  had  despatched  appeals 
to  the  sovereign  and  his  ministers ;  they  had  sent  am- 
bassadors to  speak  on  their  behalf  on  English  soil. 
And  it  was  only  when  petitions  had  been  refused,  their 
appeals  ignored,  and  their  embassies  dismissed  from  the 
royal  throne,  that  the  colonists  took  up  arms  for  inde- 
pendence. Patrick  Henry  stated  the  whole  case,  in  his 
oration  before  the  Virginia  House  of  Burgesses,  on 
March  23,  1775  — "  Let  us  not  deceive  ourselves 
longer,"  he  said.  "  We  have  done  everything  that 
could  be  done  to  avert  the  storm  which  is  now  coming 
on.  We  have  petitioned ;  we  have  remonstrated ;  we 
have  supplicated;  we  have  prostrated  ourselves  before 
the  throne.  Our  petitions  have  been  slighted;  our  re- 
monstrances have  produced  additional  violence  and  in- 
sult ;  our  supplications  have  been  disregarded ;  and  we 
have  been  spurned  in  contempt  from  the  foot  of  the 
throne.  In  vain,  after  these  things,  may  we  indulge  the 
fond  hope  of  peace  and  reconciliation.  There  is  no 
longer  any  room  for  hope.  If  we  wish  to  be  free,  we 


THE  LOGIC  OF  FORCE  49 

must  fight !  I  repeat  it,  sir,  we  must  fight.  An  appeal 
to  arms,  and  to  the  God  of  hosts,  is  all  that  is  left  us." 

The  soundness  of  this  whole  contention,  especially  as 
embodied  in  the  American  Revolution,  seemed  to  me  in- 
contestable until  about  two  years  ago,  when  I  chanced, 
one  fateful  evening,  in  Carnegie  Hall,  to  hear  a  notable 
address  by  Mrs.  Pankhurst.  In  the  opening  passages 
of  her  speech,  this  famous  leader  of  the  English  Mili- 
tants professed  the  most  nai've  amazement  that  any  true 
American  should  be  opposed  to  the  methods  which  she 
and  her  associates  were  practising  on  behalf  of  the 
woman  suffrage  movement  in  England.  "  Why,"  she 
said,  "  citizens  of  this  country,  which  had  its  birth  in 
violent  revolution,  come  to  us  every  day  and  deprecate 
the  revolution  in  which  I  am  engaged  in  my  country.  I 
have  heard  opposition  expressed  in  Newport,  where  in 
the  year  1774  the  patriots  of  America  destroyed  the 
homes  of  two  men  who  were  officers  of  the  crown  under 
the  Stamp  Act.  I  have  met  with  doubts  and  question- 
ings in  Providence,  where  in  1775  the  British  schooner, 
Gaspee,  was  burned  to  the  water's  edge  by  the  outraged 
colonists.  I  have  even  encountered  sceptics  in  Boston, 
where,  before  the  Revolution,  the  house  of  Andrew 
Oliver,  a  stamp  officer,  was  burned  by  a  rioting  mob,  the 
contents  of  the  residence  of  Chief  Justice  Hutchinson 
were  seized  and  destroyed,  and  three  hundred  and  forty 
chests  of  tea,  belonging  to  British  merchants  who  were 
guiltless  of  any  offence  against  America,  were  thrown 
into  the  sea." 

The  logic  of  Mrs.  Pankhurst's  speech  on  this  occasion 


50  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

troubled  me,  but  did  not  convince  me.  Recognition 
that  her  parallel  was  just  came  only  with  the  reading  of 
Mrs.  Pankhurst's  more  detailed  defence  of  her  policy, 
in  the  book  which  she  published  some  months  ago  under 
the  title  of  My  Own  Story.  Here,  in  the  course  of  a 
full  account  of  the  operations  of  the  Militants  from 
their  more  or  less  innocent  beginnings  to  their  sudden 
ending  on  the  occasion  of  the  European  cataclysm,  do 
we  find  a  two-fold  justification  of  the  movement. 

In  the  first  place,  says  Mrs.  Pankhurst,  the  women  of 
England  are  the  victims  of  outrageous  and  intolerable 
oppression.  The  democracy  of  England  is  a  democ- 
racy for  men,  and  not  for  women.  In  spite  of  political 
and  social  liberties  such  as  the  world  has  seen  in  no 
previous  period  of  history,  more  than  one  half  of  the 
population  of  the  Kingdom  suffer  under  disabilities  of 
the  most  serious  description.  Women  are  denied  the 
right  of  suffrage.  They  are  denied,  under  many  cir- 
cumstances, the  control  of  their  property.  In  the 
marital  relation,  they  are  denied  the  possession  of  their 
bodies.  In  escape  from  the  marital  relation,  they  are 
denied  equal  privileges  of  divorce  with  their  husbands. 
In  the  field  of  industry,  they  are  forced  to  live  and  work 
under  intolerable  conditions,  from  which  there  is  no  re- 
lease save  through  the  charity  of  men.  Sentence  by 
sentence,  paragraph  by  paragraph,  page  by  page,  Mrs. 
Pankhurst  specifies  their  disabilities,  as  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  specifies  the  disabilities  of  the  American 
colonists  under  British  rule.  From  such  iniquities,  or 
others  no  worse,  she  points  out  that  men  have  long  since 


THE  LOGIC  OF  FORCE  51 

delivered  themselves,  by  argument  when  possible,  by 
force  when  necessary.  Women,  now  corne  at  last  to 
self-consciousness,  are  proceeding  to  "  profit  by  their 
example  " ! 

Having  established,  as  she  believes,  that  the  women  of 
England  are  oppressed,  Mrs.  Pankhurst  offers  a  second 
justification  for  her  militant  movement  —  namely,  that 
the  women  have  tried  every  other  method  of  redress  in 
vain,  and  are  now  resorting  to  violence  only  as  a  last 
resort.  For  more  than  a  generation,  she  asserts,  Eng- 
lish women  have  pointed  out  their  disabilities  and  peti- 
tioned for  redress.  For  twenty  years  they  have  had  a 
majority  of  the  members  of  the  House  of  Commons 
ready  to  vote  in  favour  of  enfranchisement,  and  the  min- 
isters of  both  parties  have  refused  to  introduce  a  bill. 
Argument,  organisation,  agitation,  have  all  been  in  vain. 
Only  open  war  is  left,  and  this  war,  says  Mrs.  Pank- 
hurst, we  have  now  declared.  And  then  she  proceeds  to 
quote  the  very  speech  of  Patrick  Henry  to  which  I  have 
referred  above,  and  offer  this  as  the  final  and  perfect 
justification  of  all  that  she  and  her  associates  have  done 
in  their  campaign  of  violence.  "  I  ask  my  readers," 
says  this  great  leader,  "  to  put  themselves  in  the  place 
of  those  women  who  for  years  have  given  their  lives  un- 
stintingly  to  the  work  of  securing  political  freedom  for 
women.  I  ask  you  to  consider  that  we  had  used,  in  our 
agitation,  only  peaceful  means  until  we  saw  clearly  that 
peaceful  means  were  absolutely  of  no  avail.  Now  we 
lighted  the  torch,  and  we  did  it  with  the  absolute  convic- 
tion that  no  other  course  was  open  to  us.  We  had 


52  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

tried  every  other  measure,  and  failed."  Then,  quoting 
the  speech  of  Henry,  she  continues,  "  If  it  is  right  for 
men  to  fight  for  freedom,  then  it  is  right  for  women  to 
fight  for  freedom  and  the  freedom  of  the  children  they 
bear.  On  this  declaration  of  faith  the  militant  women 
of  England  rest  their  case." 

Here,  now,  in  this  perfect  parallel  between  the 
motives  behind  the  American  Revolution  and  those  be- 
hind the  English  Militant  Suffrage  movement,  do  we 
have  a  striking  illustration  of  what  I  have  called  the 
logic  of  force.  Once  admit  that  force  can  be  used  to 
secure  deliverance  from  oppression  under  certain  very 
definite  and  perhaps  narrow  conditions,  and  instantly 
these  conditions  are  extended  to  vindicate  violence  of  the 
most  outrageous  description.  Once  agree  that  one  man 
was  justified  in  taking  up  arms  against  tyranny,  and 
sooner  or  later  another  man,  under  what  seem  to  be  very 
different  circumstances,  will  declare  himself  a  victim  of 
tyranny  and  forthwith  proceed  to  draw  the  sword  and 
kindle  the  torch.  For  oppression,  we  must  remember,  is 
a  condition  existing  not  in  the  outer  world  of  affairs  but 
in  the  inner  world  of  the  mind.  It  is  not  the  fact  but 
the  thought  about  the  fact  that  is  really  important. 
Millions  of  men  have  lived  in  chains  and  fetters  all  their 
days,  and  been  conscious  of  no  outrage  whatsoever. 
Other  millions  have  enjoyed  a  fair  degree  of  liberty, 
perhaps,  but  have  seen  visions  and  dreamed  dreams, 
which  have  borne  their  souls  into  new  worlds  of  the 
spirit,  and  thus  made  their  comparative  freedom  an  in- 
tolerable bondage.  Oppression,  in  other  words,  is  at 


THE  LOGIC  OF  FORCE  53 

bottom,  a  psychological  and  not  a  sociological  phenom- 
enon. A  man  is  enslaved  when  he  thinks  he  is  enslaved ; 
a  man  is  free  when  he  thinks  he  is  free.  You  and  I  be- 
lieve that  the  women  of  England  are  victims  of  no  very 
great  degree  of  injustice;  but  so  undoubtedly  thought 
Lord  North  and  his  ministers  of  the  rebelling  American 
colonists  in  the  great  days  of  the  Revolution.  What 
you  think,  and  I  think,  about  the  conditions  of  the  life 
of  a  certain  man  or  group  of  men,  after  all,  docs  not 
greatly  matter.  The  one  thing  that  is  vitally  important 
is  what  the  man  himself,  or  the  group  of  men,  think 
about  this  condition.  If  they  regard  this  condition  as 
one  of  oppression,  find  that  the  world  will  not  accept 
their  interpretation  or  accede  to  their  appeals  for  re- 
dress of  grievances,  and  then  learn  from  their  forebears, 
as  Mrs.  Pankhurst  learned  from  Patrick  Henry,  that 
force  under  these  circumstances  is  justifiable  —  what  is 
to  restrain  them  from  taking  action?  Who  is  to  judge, 
not  to-morrow,  or  next  year,  or  next  century,  but  here 
and  now  to-day,  as  to  whether  violence  is  right  ?  Where 
is  there  any  judge  in  such  cases  but  the  parties  them- 
selves concerned?  What  does  Livy's  declaration  that 
"  war  is  just  for  those  for  whom  it  is  necessary,"  mean, 
if  not  "  that  war  is  just  for  those  "  who  find  it  neces- 
sary, or  think  it  necessary,  in  their  own  particular  case? 
And  if,  as  this  same  historian  tells  us,  "  arms  are  holy 
for  those  to  whom  no  hope  is  left  except. in  arms,"  why 
are  they  not  holy  for  all  who  have  tried  every  hope 
the}'  know,  and  find  nothing  left  them  but  rebellion  or 
despair  ? 


54  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

The  logic  of  force,  so  far  as  this  defence  of  its  em- 
ployment is  concerned  at  least,  is  plainly  nothing  short 
of  universal  anarchy.  Long  ago  was  it  discovered  in 
England  that  the  logic  of  Mrs.  Pankhurst's  movement 
was  that  every  man  or  woman  in  the  Kingdom  who  had 
a  grievance  against  the  Cabinet,  should  forthwith  pro- 
ceed to  break  windows,  destroy  mail,  burn  houses,  as- 
sault ministers,  and  precipitate  riots.  It  is  time  now 
that  we  saw  that  this  is  the  logic  not  only  of  Militancy 
but  of  the  American  Revolution,  and  of  every  other  out- 
break of  violence  that  the  world  has  ever  seen.  Justify 
the  employment  of  force  against  oppression  anywhere, 
and  you  justify  it  everywhere.  Justify  it  against  real 
oppression,  and  inevitably  you  justify  it  against  imag- 
ingary  oppression.  Justify  it  against  oppression  which 
can  be  righted  apparently  in  no  other  way,  and  you  jus- 
tify it  against  oppression  which  can  be  righted  easily  in 
many  other  ways.  •  Justify  the  American  Revolution, 
and  you  justify  the  Militants  who  break  windows,  the 
redskins  who  go  upon  the  war-path,  the  anarchists  who 
shoot  kings  and  presidents,  the  McNamaras  who  blow 
up  bridges  and  newspaper  offices.  Nay,  you  not  only 
justify  violence  yesterday,  but  you  encourage  new  vio- 
lence to-day  or  to-morrow.  If  "  the  test  of  brute 
strength  is  the  ultima  ratio  when  all  higher  arguments 
have  proved  vain,"  why  should  not  the  Negroes  of  the 
South,  who  are  oppressed  by  a  thousand  disabilities  and 
are  denied  resort  to  any  of  the  saving  outlets  of  democ- 
racy, prepare  a  revolution ;  why  should  not  the  millions 
of  men  and  women,  who  are  exploited  in  mines,  factories, 


THE  LOGIC  OF  FORCE  55 

and  sweatshops  and  have  cried  in  vain  these  many  years 
for  liberation,  take  up  arms  and  smite  the  lords  who 
hold  them  captive ;  why  should  not  the  unemployed,  who 
walk  our  city  streets  by  night  in  hunger  and  nakedness, 
and  lift  their  idle  hands  by  day  for  work  which  never 
comes,  break  into  our  churches,  houses,  and  storehouses, 
and  use  them  for  their  own?  It  is  easy  to  praise  revolt 
that  succeeds,  but  what  about  revolt  that  fails?  It  is 
easy  to  justify  the  use  of  force  which  has  brought 
benefits  to  men,  but  what  about  the  use  of  force  which 
has  brought  calamity?  It  is  easy  to  commend  the  vio- 
lence sanctified  by  a  century  or  two  of  glorious  tradi- 
tion, but  what  about  the  violence  which  breaks,  raw  and 
crude  and  bloody,  upon  your  own  defenceless  head 
to-day?  Is  not  force,  after  all,  force,  as  logic  is  logic? 
If  we  justify  it  in  one  place  and  at  one  time,  must  we 
not  justify  it  in  all  places  and  at  all  times?  If  condi- 
tions are  granted  once  at  the  behest  of  one  group  of 
men,  why  must  they  not  be  granted  again  at  the  behest 
of  another  group  of  men?  Our  trenches  are  deep,  but 
is  it  well,  after  all,  to  light  the  fire? 

in 

But  there  is  a  second  condition  under  which  the  use  of 
force  has  been  justified  by  men  in  the  past  and  is  still 
justified  to-day.  I  refer  to  the  familiar  plea  of  self- 
defence.  We  may  always  have  resort  to  force  with  per- 
fect propriety,  so  it  is  argued,  when  our  property,  life, 
and  honour,  or  the  property,  life,  and  honour  of  those 
committed  to  our  care,  are  in  peril  of  injury  or  destruc- 


56  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

tion.  To  fight  with  any  weapon  that  may  be  handy  in 
defence  of  your  own  is  justifiable  from  every  point  of 
view. 

In  seeking  an  illustration  of  this  second  principle, 
which  shall  be  as  unimpeachable  as  that  of  the  American 
Revolution  under  our  first  principle,  I  find  myself  think- 
ing of  the  instance  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  Emperor  of 
Rome,  in  the  closing  years  of  the  second  century  of  the 
Christian  era.  This  great  man  is  without  question 
"  the  noblest  Roman  of  them  all."  Nay,  more  than  this, 
he  is  safely  to  be  numbered  among  the  few  almost  per- 
fect characters  of  history.  With  the  single  exception 
of  Jesus  and  perhaps  Socrates,  it  is  probable  that  this 
wise  ruler  and  saintly  man  holds  a  place  second  to  none 
in  the  affection  and  reverence  of  humanity.  "  Marcus 
Aurelius,"  says  Mr.  Lecky,  in  his  History  of  European 
Morals,  "  was  the  purest  and  gentlest  spirit  of  all  the 
pagan  world,  the  last  and  most  perfect  representative  of 
Roman  Stoicism  —  as  nearly  a  perfectly  virtuous  man 
as  has  ever  appeared  upon  our  world." 

Now  if  we  turn  from  the  observation  of  the  per- 
sonality and  character  of  Aurelius  to  a  study  of  the 
events  of  his  career  as  Emperor  of  Rome,  we  discover 
two  very  remarkable  things.  In  the  first  place,  we  find 
that  this  man,  who  was  all  his  life  a  lover  of  peace  and 
a  hater  of  war,  and  who  dreamed  as  few  men  have  ever 
dreamed  of  the  coming  of  a  day  when  peace  would 
everywhere  be  established  among  men,  spent  the  larger 
part  of  his  reign  in  waging  some  of  the  bloodiest  wars 
in  all  the  history  of  the  Empire.  During  fourteen  of 


THE  LOGIC  OF  FORCE  51 

the  nineteen  years  that  he  held  the  Roman  sceptre,  Mar- 
cus Aurelius  wore  the  armour  of  a  Roman  soldier,  lived 
in  the  camp  of  the  Roman  legionaries,  and  led  his  troops 
in  battle  and  campaign  against  the  barbarians  of  Ger- 
many, Asia,  and  the  country  north  and  east  of  the 
Danube  River.  We  wonder  how  this  extraordinary  fact 
could  for  a  moment  be  possible  —  how  this  peace-loving 
author  of  the  Meditations  could  be  one  of  the  most  per- 
sistent, courageous,  and  at  times  ruthless  warriors  that 
Rome  produced.  And  when  we  turn  to  the  records  to 
find  an  explanation,  we  discover  that  this  Stoic  philoso- 
pher was  driven  to  take  up  arms  in  order  to  defend  the 
Empire  committed  to  his  care  from  hostile  incursions 
from  across  its  borders.  For  it  was  in  the  reign  of  his 
father,  Antoninus  Pius,  who  was  second  only  to  his  illus- 
trious son  in  the  virtue  of  his  life,  the  exaltation  of  his 
thought,  and  the  wisdom  of  his  rule,  that  there  began 
those  threatening  invasions  of  the  barbaric  hosts  from 
the  territories  beyond  the  Rhine,  the  Danube,  and  the 
Euphrates,  which  finally  overthrew  the  Empire  which 
had  subdued  the  world.  By  the  time  that  Marcus 
Aurelius  had  come  to  the  throne,  these  invasions  had  be- 
come persistent  and  dangerous.  Hurled  back  beyond 
the  frontiers  at  one  place,  they  promptly  broke  out  at 
another.  And  thus  for  fourteen  of  his  nineteen  years 
as  Emperor,  as  I  have  said,  this  brave  and  patient 
ruler,  this  lover  of  peace  and  dreamer  of  dreams,  kept 
himself  at  the  head  of  his  armies.  And  so  far  as  I  have 
been  able  to  discover,  all  historians  unite  in  praising 
Aurelius  for  fighting  this  long  succession  of  wars,  and 


58  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

in  declaring  that  through  his  great  feats  of  arms,  the 
doom  of  Rome  was  postponed  for  at  least  one  hundred 
and  fifty  years. 

Here,  now,  is  an  excellent  example  of  what  is  meant 
by  the  use  of  force  for  purposes  of  defence.  Aurelius 
never  took  up  arms  as  a  conqueror.  In  all  his  years  of 
fighting,  he  added  not  a  single  square  mile  to  the  terri- 
tory over  which  he  held  domain.  Had  the  Empire  not 
been  invaded,  his  nineteen  years  of  rule  would  have  been 
years  of  uninterrupted  tranquillity.  But  when  the  in- 
cursions came  from  over  the  frontiers  east,  north,  and 
west,  there  was  nothing  for  him  to  do  but  act.  Just 
because  he  was  the  best  of  men  as  well  as  the  most  faith- 
ful of  rulers,  he  drew  the  sword  and  defended  by  the 
sword  the  Empire  which  had  been  committed  to  his  hand. 

But  there  is  a  second  feature  of  Marcus  Aurelius's 
reign  which  is  even  more  remarkable  than  the  first.  I 
refer  not  only  to  the  fact  that  this  lover  of  peace  was  a 
successful  warrior,  but  to  the  still  more  paradoxical  fact 
that  this  man,  whose  virtue  is  surpassed  only  by  that  of 
Jesus  and  whose  love  for  humanity  constitutes  one  of 
the  most  cherished  memories  of  the  race,  proved  himself 
to  be,  with  the  possible  exception  of  Diocletian,  the  most 
persistent  and  ruthless  persecutor  of  Christianity  that 
Rome  ever  produced.  John  Stuart  Mill  declares,  in  his 
Essay  on  Liberty,  that  the  persecution  of  the  Christians 
by  a  man  like  Marcus  Aurelius  is  "  one  of  the  most 
tragical  facts  in  the  history  of  the  world."  Terrible 
beyond  words  were  the  deeds  which  were  done  under  the 
sign  and  seal  of  this  gentle,  kindly,  and  wholly  right- 


THE  LOGIC  OF  FORCE.  50 

minded  monarch.  The  persecutions  in  Smyrna,  which 
"  far  exceeded  in  atrocity,"  says  Lecky,  "  any  that 
Christianity  had  endured  since  Nero,"  were  authorised 
at  this  time.  The  fearful  story  of  the  persecutions  in 
Lyons,  which  Lecky  describes  as  "  one  of  the  most  atro- 
cious in  the  whole  compass  of  ecclesiastical  history,"  is 
a  part  of  the  record  of  his  reign.  Polycarp  and  Justin 
Martyr,  two  of  the  noblest  of  the  church  fathers,  fell 
victims  to  the  sword  of  this  beneficent  Emperor.  Men 
and  women  burned  to  death,  children  slaughtered  like 
sheep,  old  men  placed  in  torture,  maidens  outraged  by 
ferocious  soldiery  —  these  were  the  horrors  committed 
at  the  direction  and  under  the  authority  of  him  whose 
precepts  have  been  the  guide  of  life  and  whose  life  the 
type  of  sainthood,  for  seventeen  hundred  years.  Search 
the  pages  of  history  fnom  end  to  end  and  no  stranger 
anomaly  than  this  can  anywhere  be  found. 

Attempts  to  explain  this  anomaly  have  of  course  been 
many.  It  is  impossible,  of  course,  to  attribute  such 
deeds  to  any  natural  ferocity  in  Marcus  Aurelius's  char- 
acter, for  every  circumstance  sustains  the  theory  that 
he  was  gentle,  pure,  and  generous  beyond  all  previous 
example.  Equally  impossible  is  it  to  attribute  the  per- 
secutions to  any  occasional  or  momentary  outbreak  of 
religious  fanaticism,  for  the  Meditations  are  an  im- 
mortal witness  to  the  fact  that  he  was  among  the  calmest 
and  most  broad-minded  of  men,  absolutely  tolerant  of 
all  forms  of  religion,  Christianity  excepted.  Neither  is 
it  possible  to  believe  that  Marcus  Aurelius  cherished  any 
particular  hatred  for  Christians  as  Christians.  In  the 


60  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

first  place,  he  was  most  decidedly  a  man  immune  to  per- 
sonal hatreds  of  any  kind;  and  in  the  second  place,  the 
Meditations  give  the  clearest  indications  that  he  knew 
nothing  about  the  Christians,  and  had  no  interest  in 
their  teachings  or  practices.  The  only  explanation  of 
the  phenomenon  which  has  ever  found  acceptance  by 
historians  is  that  laid  down  in  most  satisfactory  form  in 
the  Encyclopedia  Britannica.  "  The  Christians,"  says 
the  writer  of  the  article  on  Aurelius,  "  had  assumed  a 
much  bolder  attitude  than  they  had  hitherto  done.  Not 
content  with  bare  toleration  in  the  Empire,  they  de- 
clared war  against  all  heathen  rites,  and,  at  least  in- 
directly, against  the  government  which  permitted  them 
to  exist.  In  the  eyes  of  Marcus  Aurelius  they  were  foes 
of  that  social  order  which  he  considered  the  first  of  a 
citizen's  duties  to  maintain ;  although  the  most  amiable 
of  men  and  of  rulers,  he  considered  it  his  duty  to  sanc- 
tion measures  for  the  extermination  of  such  wretches." 
In  this  statement  we  have  what  may  be  regarded  as  a 
true  explanation  of  the  extraordinary  paradox  of 
Aurelius's  persecutions.  And  it  is  an  explanation  which 
preserves  unimpaired  the  flawless  character  of  the  man, 
even  if  it  fails  to  justify  the  acts  which  he  committed. 
Exactly  the  same  motive,  in  other  words,  which  led 
Marcus  Aurelius,  the  sincere  lover  of  peace,  to  wage 
relentless  war  against  the  barbarians  across  the  fron- 
tier, led  this  same  Marcus  Aurelius,  the  sincere  lover  of 
his  kind,  to  conduct  persecutions  of  terrible  ferocity 
against  the  Christians  within  the  realm.  The  Emperor 


THE  LOGIC  OF  FORCE  61 

lifted  the  sword  in  the  one  case  on  exactly  the  same 
principle  that  he  lifted  it  in  the  other.  In  both  cases, 
he  was  engaged  in  the  splendid  business  of  protecting  his 
Empire  against  wanton  and  threatening  attacks  of  its 
enemies.  In  both  cases,  he  was  appealing  to  arms  on 
the  high  ground  of  self-defence.  And  I  have  no  doubt 
that,  if  he  had  been  made  to  choose  between  destroying 
the  enemies  beyond  the  borders  and  the  enemies  within 
the  Christian  church,  he  would  have  unhesitatingly 
selected  the  latter,  as  by  all  means  the  more  dangerous 
of  the  two. 

Here,  now,  in  the  instance  of  so  radiantly  beautiful  a 
character  as  that  of  Marcus  Aurelius,  do  we  find  a  per- 
fect illustration  of  the  tragic  lengths  to  which  the  logic 
of  force  will  conduct  us  if  once  we  yield  to  the  appeal 
of  self-defence.  Any  form  of  violence  can  be  justified 
on  this  ground.  Pope  Alexander  VI  was  justified  in  all 
that  he  did  against  the  Florentine  priest,  Savonarola, 
for  the  latter  had  declared  war  upon  the  church  and  was 
doing  all  he  could  to  weaken  and  discredit  it.  The 
citizens  of  Athens  were  justified  in  condemning  Socrates 
to  drink  the  hemlock,  for  this  philosopher  was  the  un- 
relenting foe  of  the  institutions  that  these  citizens  held 
dear.  Caiaphas  was  justified  in  nailing  Jesus  to  the 
cross  of  Calvary,  for  the  Nazarene  had  threatened  more 
than  once  to  destroy  Jerusalem  and  overthrow  the 
temple.  George  III  was  justified  in  making  war  upon 
America,  in  defence  of  the  integrity  of  his  Kingdom. 
The  South  was  justified  in  firing  upon  Sumter,  in  de- 


62  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

fence  of  slavery.  Germany  was  justified  in  marching 
through  Belgium  and  France,  in  defence  of  the  liberties 
of  the  Empire.  Go  through  all  the  history  of  the  world 
—  study  all  the  persecutions,  outrages,  slaughters, 
martyrdoms,  wars  —  search  out  the  motives  that  de- 
termined these  tragedies  of  blood  and  iron.  And  I  ven- 
!  ture  to  prophesy  that,  in  every  case,  it  will  be  found 
that  the  injury  was  wrought  because  some  man,  or  insti- 
tution, or  country,  felt  it  necessary  to  defend  something 
which  was  assailed  and  in  danger  therefore  of  destruc- 
tion. 

What  indeed  is  defence,  after  all,  but  aggression  from 
the  other  point  of  view?  The  wars  of  Marcus  Aurelius 
were  all  of  them  defensive  wars,  as  we  have  seen.  But 
again  and  again  he  invaded  the  countries  of  his  foes, 
ravaged  their  fields,  burned  their  cities,  and  slaughtered 
their  inhabitants,  on  the  perfectly  sound  military  prin- 
ciple that  offensive  action  of  this  kind  was  the  best 
means  of  preserving  the  frontiers  of  the  Empire  intact. 
The  persecutions  of  Marcus  Aurelius  were  all  of  them  in 
defence  of  the  government  against  the  attacks  of  the 
Christian,  as  we  have  also  seen.  But  the  officers  of  the 
Empire  hunted  out  the  Christians  in  their  homes  and 
churches,  drove  them  from  street  to  street  and  city  to 
city,  and  put  them  to  the  sword  or  the  torch  wherever 
found.  Efficient  defence  always  means  efficient  assault. 
It  is  ridiculous,  said  a  distinguished  American  states- 
man in  my  hearing  not  long  ago,  to  talk  about  building 
up  a  navy  for  coast  defence.  There  is  no  such  thing, 
he  continued,  as  a  coast  defence.  The  only  navy  worth 


THE  LOGIC  OF  FORCE  63 

anything  is  a  navy  which  is  ready  to  attack  the  enemy 
upon  any  one  of  the  seven  seas  and  put  his  ship  and  men 
altogether  out  of  business. 

The  present  war  in  Europe  is  the  supreme  example  of 
this  great  truth.  Never  in  any  previous  war  of  history 
has  fighting  been  so  persistently  aggressive.  And  yet 
every  one  of  the  nations  involved,  from  Germany  on  the 
one  hand  to  Montenegro  on  the  other  hand,  is  fighting 
on  the  defence.  Austria  precipitated  the  whole  conflict 
in  order  that  she  might  defend  herself  against  Serbia  — 
and  in  the  process  has  nearly  wiped  Serbia  from  the  map 
of  Europe.  Russia  mobilised  her  troops  and  entered 
upon  the  war  in  order  to  defend  the  interests  of  the  Slav 
against  Austria  —  and  for  months  after  the  fight  began 
her  troops  were  fighting  in  Galicia  and  Bukowina. 
Germany  took  up  arms  against  Russia  —  and  her 
armies  have  destroyed  Belgium,  conquered  northern 
France,  and  are  far  advanced  in  Russian  Poland.  Of- 
fence, immediate  and  terrible,  as  Germany  is  teaching 
the  world  with  awful  impressiveness,  is  the  only  sure 
defence.  To  hit  the  first  blow,  and  hit  so  hard  that  the 
enemy  is  forthwith  put  out  of  action,  is  the  whole  pro- 
gramme of  protective  battle.  From  the  standpoint  of 
force,  Germany  was  perfectly  right  to  sweep  Belgium, 
and  invade  France  and  Poland,  in  order  to  defend  her- 
self against  Russia.  This  was  defence  in  the  best  sense 
of  the  word  —  it  was  defence  which  really  defended ! 

To  resort  to  force,  therefore,  from  motives  of  self- 
defence  is  as  perilous  as  to  resort  to  force  from  motives 
of  liberation.  In  this  case  as  in  the  other  the  fire  leaps 


64  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

the  trenches  and  kindles  the  conflagration.  It  is  doubt- 
ful if  defence,  even  when  successfully  kept  within 
bounds,  is  ever  itself  defensible.  Nothing  hinders 
progress  more  lamentably  than  the  defence  of  the  things 
which  ought  not  to  be  defended.  There  is  no  falsehood 
so  gross,  no  superstition  so  hideous,  no  prejudice  so 
base,  no  institution  so  hoary  and  decayed,  that  millions 
will  not  rush  to  its  defence  and  wildly  take  up  arms  on 
its  behalf.  If  a  thing  cannot  be  its  own  defence,  on  the 
ground  of  reason  and  beneficence,  but  must  appeal  to 
arms  that  it  may  live,  then  it  is  time,  high  time,  that  it 
should  die.  The  sword  is  the  weapon  of  death,  wielded 
by  death  to  do  the  work  of  death.  For  this  reason,  if 
for  no  other,  is  it  never  the  friend  of  life,  and  never 
therefore  to  be  safely  lifted  to  do  life's  work. 


IV 


Such  is  the  logic  of  force !  Justify  violence  on  either 
of  the  two  grounds  which  I  have  specified,  and  immedi- 
ately you  kindle  the  flame  which  devours  the  world.  Is 
it  right  to  use  force  as  the  ultima  ratio  in  the  battle 
against  oppression?  —  then  may  anybody  take  up  arms 
who  thinks  himself  to  be  oppressed  and  helpless  other- 
wise to  gain  freedom !  Is  it  right  to  use  force  in  self- 
defence  ?  —  then  may  any  man,  nation  or  religion,  sweep 
the  world  with  ravage  that  security  may  be  assured  by 
world  dominion.  The  logic  of  force  is  in  the  one  case 
anarchy,  and  in  the  other  case,  murder,  persecution,  and 
universal  war.  It  is  the  old  lesson  of  violence  breeding 
violence,  hate  breeding  hate,  war  breeding  war.  The 


THE  LOGIC  OF  FORCE  65 

present  situation  is  the  perfect  illustration  —  a  world 
founded  upon  force  as  the  ultimate  principle  of  life, 
tumbling  to  ruin  before  the  assaults  of  the  weapons  it- 
self has  builded  for  liberation  and  defence ! 

A  few  months  ago,  shortly  after  the  outbreak  of  the 
Great  War,  there  died  a  man  who  was  ranked  during  his 
life  as  one  of  the  supreme  intellectual  leaders  of  his  time, 
and  who  had  a  larger  influence,  perhaps,  in  the  move- 
ment for  great  armaments  of  the  last  twenty  or  thirty 
years  than  any  other  one  person.  I  refer  to  Admiral 
Mahan,  the  discoverer,  or  creator,  of  the  modern  theory 
of  sea-power.  A  few  weeks  after  his  death,  there  ap- 
peared in  one  of  our  great  religious  journals,  a  tribute 
written  by  a  friend  who  had  known  Mahan  intimately 
through  many  years,  and  had  shared,  even  to  the  last 
moments  of  his  life,  his  innermost  thoughts.  And  this 
is  what  he  said — "Admiral  Mahan,  though  by  profes- 
sion a  man  of  war,  was  at  heart  a  man  of  peace.  He 
advocated  preparedness  for  war  and  readiness  to  strike, 
only  as  the  best  means  he  was  yet  aware  of,  to  further 
peace  in  the  end.  But  now  it  appears  that  .  .  . 
in  extolling  England's  sea-power,  Mahan  had  been 
spurring  on  the  present  autocracies  of  Europe  to  use 
his  lessons  against  England  and  all  that  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  mind  stands  for  in  the  world.  Here  was  an  un- 
expectedly logical  application  of  his  thesis  —  and  we 
need  not  be  surprised  to  learn  that  it  gave  him  pause." 


CHAPTER  III 
THE    FALLACIES  OF  FORCE 


"  Force  is   no  remedy." —  John  Bright,  in  Speech  on  the  Irish 
Troubles  (1880). 


CHAPTER  III 

THE    FALLACIES    OF    FORCE 

THE  danger  that  is  involved  in  the  use  of  violence  for 
purposes  however  closely  restricted,  must  now  be  clear. 
Once  liberate  force,  under  any  conditions,  and  you  set 
in  motion  consequences  which  are  beyond  all  calculation 
and  control.  The  doctrine  of  force,  however  hedged 
about  with  qualifications,  leads  straight  in  the  end  to 
the  anarchic  principle  that  force  may  be  freely  used  by 
anybody  who  has  an  end  to  gain  or  an  interest  to  guard. 
The  logic  of  force,  in  the  last  analysis,  is  nothing  more 
nor  less  than  the  definite  establishment  of  the  barbaric 
faith  that  strength  may  be  synonymous  with  good.  We 
are  returned,  in  other  words,  to  the  ancient  maxim, 
Might  makes  Right ! 


Not  yet,  however,  have  we  demonstrated  that  the  use 
of  force  should  be  dispensed  with  altogether.  For  the 
fact  that  a  certain  weapon  or  agent  is  dangerous  is  no 
conclusive  argument  for  its  abolition.  Nothing  is  more 
terrible  in  its  possibilities,  for  example,  than  fire,  as  the 
parable  in  the  last  chapter  indicated  with  great  clear- 
ness. But  nobody  would  argue,  on  the  basis  of  this 
parable,  that  man  should  try  to  live  without  making  use 

of  this  essential  element.     Dangerous  as  it  is,  fire  is  still 

69 


70  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

indispensable  to  life.  Its  discovery  undoubtedly  marks 
the  beginning  of  civilisation,  and  its  progressive  utilisa- 
tion in  processes  of  heating,  lighting,  transportation, 
and  manufacture,  the  development  of  civilisation.  Its 
dangers  are  admitted ;  but  these  imply  not  abandonment 
but  control. 

So  also  with  dynamite,  lyddite,  and  other  instantane- 
ous explosives.  Nothing  more  perilous  is  known  to 
man  than  these  terrifying  agencies  of  destruction.  And 
yet  they  are  manufactured  in  vast  quantities  in  every 
land,  transported  regularly  on  lines  of  public  travel, 
stored  in  great  centres  of  population,  and  used  as  com- 
monly in  certain  industrial  operations  as  sand  or  cement. 
These  explosives,  in  other  words,  are  necessary  agencies 
of  social  life.  They  accomplish  certain  things  which 
cannot  be  accomplished  in  any  other  way.  Therefore  is 
their  use,  under  certain  rigid  restrictions  of  inspection 
and  precaution,  not  only  permitted  but  encouraged. 

Poisons  of  various  kinds  furnish  another  illustration 
of  exactly  the  same  kind.  Only  a  few  months  ago,  for 
example,  recurring  deaths  from  the  accidental  use  of 
bichloride  of  mercury  started  a  vigorous  agitation 
against  this  particular  drug.  Great  stress  was  laid 
upon  its  perils ;  but  nobody,  so  far  as  I  know,  advocated 
its  out-and-out  suppression.  Like  all  poisons,  it  was 
fatal  to  human  life,  but  like  all  poisons  also,  it  fulfilled 
indispensably  certain  needs.  Therefore  was  it  argued 
that  its  use  should  be  not  prohibited  but  regulated. 
And  laws  restricting  its  sale  to  certain  licensed  agencies, 
its  use  to  certain  authorised  persons,  and  its  manufac- 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  71 

tured  form  to  tablets  of  a  certain  shape  and  bottles  of 
a  certain  size,  were  speedily  passed  in  many  states. 

Now  what  is  true  here  of  such  elements  as  fire,  explo- 
sives and  poisons,  would  seem  to  be  true  also  of  physical 
force  as  an  agency  of  human  action.  It  is  true  that  the 
use  of  force  is  attended  by  dangers  of  the  most  serious 
description.  Leaping  the  barriers  of  control,  it  works 
havoc  far  and  wide.  Adopted  with  reluctance  by  an 
unselfish  man  for  unselfish  ends,  it  is  straightway 
adopted  with  eagerness  by  a  selfish  man  for  selfish  ends. 
Taken  as  a  last  resort  to  save  the  race,  it  is  seized  as  a 
first  resort  to  destroy  the  race.  And  yet,  in  spite  of 
the  perils  involved  in  its  employment,  it  cannot  be 
dispensed  with  altogether.  Again  and  again  there  ap- 
pear contingencies  in  human  life  when  the  use  of  force 
becomes  absolutely  necessary.  On  every  side  there  exist 
problems  of  human  relationships  which  cannot  be  solved 
save  as  resort  is  made  ultimately  to  the  "  arma  virum- 
que,"  of  which  Virgil  proudly  sang.  Peace,  for  example, 
between  men  and  nations  alike,  can  never  be  maintained 
except  by  the  action  of  authority  backed  by  force.  Se- 
curity both  for  the  individual  and  for  the  state,  can  be 
guaranteed  by  nothing  short  of  the  clenched  fist  and  the 
loaded  gun.  Life  itself  can  fulfil  its  uttermost  capacity 
and  reach  its  farthest  goal  only  as  its  will  to  power  is 
given  free  exercise  and  scope.  There  are  certain  funda- 
mental points  of  view,  in  other  words,  from  which  the 
use  of  force  is  seen  to  be  indispensable  to  the  mainten- 
ance and  development  of  life.  The  peril  of  its  use  is  as 
nothing  to  the  peril  of  its  disuse.  Magnify  its  dangers 


72  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

as  much  as  you  please,  and  still  you  have  demonstrated 
nothing  but  the  wisdom  of  caution  and  the  unwisdom 
of  precipitancy.  You  have  shown  us  not  that  we  must 
stop,  but  only  that  we  must  be  sure  that  we  are  right 
before  we  go  ahead ! 

n 

Now  it  is  just  this  basic  idea  of  the  efficacy  of  force 
in  certain  contingencies  —  the  necessity  of  force  for 
the  solution  of  certain  problems  and  the  achievement  of 
certain  ends  —  that  I  propose  to  consider  in  this  chap- 
ter. And  let  me  state  with  all  possible  emphasis,  at  the 
very  outset  of  my  discussion,  that  I  believe  that  this 
idea  is  utterly  and  pre-eminently  fallacious.  It  is  a 
superstition  inherited  from  past  ages  of  barbarism  and 
savagery,  which  knew  no  weapon  but  that  of  force  and 
no  aim  but  that  of  conquest.  It  is  a  delusion  carried 
over  from  the  primitive  time  when  man  struggled  single- 
handed  against  the  ravin  of  wild  beasts  and  the  raging 
of  the  elements.  Like  the  vermiform  appendix,  it  is  a 
survival  of  man's  animal  organism  and  experience,  which 
should  long  since  have  fallen  into  disuse.  Force  is 
efficacious  to  no  end  —  it  is  necessary  for  no  purpose. 
It  brings  not  peace,  but  war.  It  guarantees  not  se- 
curity but  insecurity.  It  accompanies  the  lowest  and 
not  the  highest  type  of  human  existence.  From  the 
very  beginning  of  the  world  it  has  been  tried,  and  from 
the  very  beginning  of  the  world  it  has  proved  itself  a 
failure.  Life  has  survived  in  any  form  only  as  it  has 
escaped  the  destructive  influences  of  force.  Life  has 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  73 

climbed  from  one  form  to  another  in  the  slow  process  of 
evolution,  only  as  it  has  discarded  the  downward 
tendencies  of  force.  Life  is  to-day  expanding,  mount- 
ing, attaining  —  finding  after  long  centuries  of  dis- 
appointment, some  promise  at  least  of  ultimate  peace, 
security  and  joy  —  only  as  it  is  resolutely  putting  away 
the  works  of  the  flesh,  and  seeking,  however  haltingly 
and  fearfully,  the  things  of  the  spirit.  Of  all  the 
fallacies  of  history,  the  fallacy  of  force  is  the  most 
prodigious  and  the  most  fatal.  "  If  there  be  any 
virtue  and  if  there  be  any  praise  "  in  the  monstrous 
horrors  of  the  Great  War  now  raging  through  the 
world,  they  are  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  at  last, 
through  an  unexampled  cataclysm,  this  fallacy  of  falla- 
cies has  been  blasted  forevermore. 

ra 

If  we  follow  the  lead  of  those  who  believe  in  the  gospel 
of  force  most  thoroughly  and  teach  it  most  consistently, 
we  shall  find  ourselves  carried  straight  back  to  the  basic 
principles  of  life  as  these  are  revealed  in  the  earliest 
forms  of  organic  existence  upon  this  planet.  The 
ultimate  justification  of  force  is  a  biological  justifica- 
tion, reflected  first  in  the  struggle  for  existence,  and 
secondly  in  the  survival  in  this  struggle  of  those  crea- 
tures which  are  the  strongest  and  as  a  consequence  the 
fittest.  The  law  of  nature  is  the  law  of  struggle  — 
and  the  goal  of  nature  is  the  goal  of  survival.  To 
struggle,  fight,  contend,  is  to  share  in  the  world-process 
—  and  to  succeed  is  to  share  in  the  triumph  of  this 


74  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

process.  He  who  appeals  to  arms,  therefore,  is  making 
an  ultimate  appeal.  He  has  the  universe  on  his  side. 
He  is  one  with  tides  and  winds,  storms  and  seasons, 
rolling  suns  and  marching  stars.  He  who  refuses  to 
make  use  of  force,  on  the  other  hand,  is  outlawing  him- 
self from  nature,  interfering  with  the  cosmic  process, 
defying  the  will  of  God.  To  live  by  the  law  of  force  in 
human  relationships  is  simply  to  provide  that,  with  man 
as  with  the  plants  and  animals,  the  fittest  and  therefore 
the  worthiest  shall  survive.  To  ignore  or  repudiate  this 
law  of  force  in  human  relationships,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  to  betray  the  fit  to  the  unfit,  and  thus  expose  mankind 
to  degeneration,  decay  and  ultimate  death.  Force, 
therefore,  and  life  are  interchangeable  terms.  The  one 
is  not  possible  without  the  other. 

General  Bernhardi,  in  the  second  chapter  of  his  book 
on  Germany  and  the  Next  War,  has  given  as  clear  an 
exposition  of  this  point  of  view  as  could  be  desired. 
"  The  aspiration  toward  the  abolition  of  force,"  he  says, 
in  one  place,  "  is  directly  antagonistic  to  the  great  uni- 
versal laws  which  rule  the  development  of  life.  The  use 
of  force  is  a  biological  necessity  of  the  first  importance. 
At  the  basis  of  all, healthy  development,  nay  of  existence 
itself,  is  the  struggle  for  existence.  This  struggle  is 
regulated  and  restrained  by  the  unconscious  surviving 
of  biological  forms.  Everywhere  the  law  of  the 
stronger  holds  good.  Those  forms  survive  which  are 
able  to  procure  for  themselves  the  most  favourable  con- 
ditions of  life,  and  to  assert  themselves  in  the  universal 
economy  of  nature.  The  weaker  on  the  other  hand 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  75 

succumb.  To  supplant  or  to  be  supplanted  is  the  es- 
sence of  life,  and  the  strong  life  gains  the  upper  hand." 

A  return,  now,  to  the  early  ages  of  biological  history 
would  seem  to  indicate  that  General  Bernhardi  is  per- 
fectly right  in  laying  down  this  interpretation  of  life  in 
terms  of  physical  energy  and  prowess.  Certainly,  in 
these  more  primitive  epochs  of  the  world's  development, 
force  seems  to  have  been  not  so  much  the  dominant  as 
the  sole  principle  of  action.  To  all  appearances  nature 
had  discovered  but  one  method  of  evolution,  the  battle 
for  physical  supremacy,  and  with  marvellous  thorough- 
ness proceeded  to  prepare  her  contending  creatures  for 
the  fray.  She  built  her  armaments,  manufactured  her 
weapons,  stored  up  her  munitions  of  war  —  and 
straightway  the  world  was  filled  with  monsters  of  almost 
unimaginable  size  and  strength,  who  battled  in  the  ooze 
and  slime  for  the  mastery  of  creation.  "  Equipped 
from  her  arsenal  with  her  varied  arms  and  armour," 
says  Dr.  J.  C.  Kimball,  in  his  Studies  in  Evolution, 
"  nature  sent  forth  her  myriad  creatures  into  their 
great  life-battle." 

It  may  be  interesting  to  pause  here,  for  a  moment, 
and  survey  some  of  these  mighty  warriors  of  the  ante- 
diluvian age,  that  we  may  appreciate  with  what  com- 
pleteness the  law  of  force  was  tested  at  this  time.  Here, 
for  example,  was  the  Dinichthys,  a  Devonian  ganoid  fish, 
which  was  thirty  feet  long,  and  was  protected  about  its 
head  with  a  suit  of  massive  articulated  armour.  Here 
were  some  monster  reptiles,  the  Mcgalosaur,  the  Mosa- 
saur,  the  Dinosaur,  etc.,  which  varied  in  length  from 


76  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

fifty,  sixty,  to  one  hundred  feet,  were  plated  over  with 
thick  scales  for  defence,  and  armed  for  attack  with  claws 
hooked  back  like  sickles.  The  Mastodon,  with  his  huge 
bulk,  thick  hairy  hide,  and  tusks  twelve  and  fourteen 
feet  long,  has  been  made  known  to  us  by  deposits  in 
Siberian  fields  and  Arctic  wastes.  Less  familiar  is  the 
Glyptodon,  which  carried  on  his  back  a  solidified  bony 
armour,  nine  feet  across  and  weighing  four  thousand 
pounds.  Then  there  is  the  Megatherium,  which  had 
clawed  feet  which  were  a  full  yard  in  length.  And  no 
less  terrible  was  the  Machairodus,  or  sabre-toothed 
tiger,  whose  open  mouth  was  an  arsenal  set  with  four 
rows  of  long,  sharp,  glistening,  sword-like  teeth. 

Here  are  only  a  few  of  the  frightful  monsters,  armed 
like  modern  dreadnaughts  for  attack  upon  and  defence 
against  their  enemies,  which  swam  the  seas  and  rivers, 
walked  the  earth,  and  battled  ceaselessly  for  existence, 
in  these  early  prehistoric  times.  Surely  if  force  ever 
did  its  perfect  work,  it  did  it  in  the  persons  of  such 
magnificently  equipped  creatures  as  these.  If  living 
organisms  were  ever  fitted  to  battle  and  survive,  these 
were  the  ones.  And  yet  when  we  look  abroad  over  the 
world  to-day  to  find  these  monsters  and  congratulate 
them,  we  search  for  them  from  pole  to  pole  in  vain. 
Nowhere  are  they  to  be  found.  They  have  vanished, 
every  one.  Yea,  vanished  so  long  ago  and  so  com- 
pletely, that,  were  it  not  for  an  occasional  bone  un- 
covered from  some  remote  deposit  in  the  earth,  and  a 
few  degenerate  survivors  like  the  shark  and  the  alligator, 
still  lingering  in  our  own  time,  we  should  never  even 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  77 

know  that  such  creatures  once  walked  the  earth  and 
boasted,  as  they  battled  for  existence,  that  to  meet  force 
with  force  is  the  basic  condition  of  security,  happiness 
and  peace.  Something  would  certainly  seem  to  be 
wrong  with  General  Bernhardi's  interpretation  of  life. 
Force  has  here  had  its  chance  to  demonstrate  its  central 
place  in  the  law  of  life,  and  yet,  if  survival  is  any  evi- 
dence of  efficacy,  it  has  failed,  and  failed  completely. 
What  is  the  explanation  ? 

A  very  clear  suggestion  as  to  what  is  involved  in  this 
matter  is  indicated  by  the  character  of  the  animals 
which  occupy  the  world  in  greatest  numbers  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  and  thus  may  be  regarded  as  having  success- 
fully withstood  the  test  of  survival.  Horses,  cows, 
dogs,  sheep,  goats,  wolves,  monkeys,  etc. ;  plants,  birds, 
insects,  fishes  —  these  are  no  new-comers  upon  the  scene. 
All  species  of  this  type  can  be  traced  back  to  origins  as 
remote  as  those  of  the  huge  giants  whose  battles  must 
have  shaken  sky  and  sea.  At  the  very  time,  that  is,  that 
these  "  monsters  of  the  prime "  were  bestriding  the 
earth  like  so  many  colossi,  other  creatures,  diminutive  in 
size,  puny  in  strength,  unarmed  in  any  way  for  either 
attack  or  defence,  were  struggling  here  for  life ;  and, 
mirabile  dictu,  these  are  the  creatures  which  have  sur- 
vived !  Not  the  Megalosaur  but  the  horse,  not  the 
Glyptodon  but  the  dog,  not  the  Megatherium  but  the 
deer,  have  endured  into  this  later  age.  The  small  have 
outlived  the  great,  the  weak  defeated  the  strong,  the 
gentle  overcome  the  savage.  Scythe-like  claws,  sabre- 
like  teeth,  tusks,  bony  armour,  iron  scales  —  all  these 


78  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

have  availed  nothing.  Something  else  has  been  at  work 
here  in  the  great  process  of  evolution  —  something  as 
silent,  and  yet  as  potent,  as  the  attraction  of  the 
spheres.  Nor  is  it  difficult  to  discern  what  the  secret  is  ! 
At  the  basis  of  the  development  of  the  great  monsters 
of  the  early  days  were  the  very  factors  of  which  General 
Bernhardi  has  spoken  so  emphatically  —  first  struggle, 
and  secondly  force  as  the  weapon  of  survival  in  this 
struggle.  The  outward  expression  of  this  type  of  life 
is  seen  in  the  huge  armaments  of  attack  and  defence 
with  which  these  mighty  creatures  were  equipped. 
These  armaments  were  provided,  of  course,  with  the  dis- 
tinct idea,  if  we  may  so  express  it,  of  protecting  the  ani- 
mals which  wielded  them  from  injury  and  destruction. 
But  strangely  enough,  as  experience  slowly  but  surely 
demonstrated,  they  worked  just  the  other  way.  Each 
monster,  armed  literally  to  the  teeth,  was  a  foe  to  every 
other.  Battle  and  death  were  the  order  of  the  day, 
with  extermination  sooner  or  later  the  inevitable  result. 
Had  the  work  of  propagation  been  maintained  in  equal 
ratio  with  the  work  of  destruction,  this  fate  of  extinc- 
tion might  have  been  prevented  or  at  least  indefinitely 
delayed.  But  the  combativeness  of  these  monsters,  de- 
veloped, by  the  armaments  which  they  carried,  to  a 
point  of  blood-thirstiness  never  paralleled  in  all  creation 
since,  kept  them  moving  in  isolation.  The  bulk  of  their 
armour  and  the  effectiveness  of  their  offensive  weapons 
seriously  interfered  with  the  process  of  breeding.  And, 
worst  of  all,  these  armaments  were  so  costly  from  the 
standpoint  of  mere  maintainance,  that  all  the  vital  en- 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  79 

ergies  were  utilised  for  this  one  end,  to  the  practical 
exclusion  of  everything  else.  These  mighty  monsters 
were  their  own  worst  enemies.  In  this  case  as  in  every 
other,  force  proved  itself  to  be  an  instrument  of  death, 
and  not  of  life. 

How  different  is  the  spectacle,  however,  when  we  come 
to  the  other  type  of  animal,  of  which  I  have  spoken. 
Provided  with  no  weapons  to  kill  their  foes,  covered  with 
no  armour  to  protect  them  from  attack,  these  feeble 
creatures  had  no  course  open  to  them  but  to  congregate 
in  flocks  and  herds  and  packs,  and  seek  strength  in  the 
mere  fact  of  numbers.  Association  rather  than  isola- 
tion, was  their  way  of  life ;  co-operation  rather  than 
conflict,  was  their  programme  of  action ;  self-sacrifice 
rather  than  self-assertion,  was  their  spirit  of  endeavour. 
Held  together  by  sheer  necessities  of  defence  against 
their  mightier  competitors,  and  impeded  by  few  rivalries 
or  hatreds  among  themselves,  these  animals  found  the 
process  of  breeding  easy  and  rapid.  Cumbered  by  no 
elaborate  armour,  they  were  able  to  divert  vast  stores 
of  energy  into  the  channels  of  propagation,  care  for  the 
young,  and  mutual  aid.  In  spite  of  disasters  to  indi- 
viduals and  occasional  disasters  to  entire  groups  of 
individuals,  flocks  developed  into  herds,  herds  into  multi- 
tudes of  herds,  multitudes  of  herds  into  countless  myri- 
ads. Everything  here  was  directed  to  the  increase 
of  strength,  the  multiplication  of  energy,  the  conserving 
of  life.  And  while  thus,  by  association,  co-operation, 
friendship,  sympathy,  love,  and  self-sacrifice,  these 
forms  of  life  survived  all  invasions  and  calamities,  the 


80  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

mighty  monsters  busied  themselves  with  mutual  slaugh- 
ter, and  thus  little  by  little  left  the  world  to  the  weak- 
lings which  they  despised. 

What  is  really  involved  in  this  miracle  of  survival 
through  love,  as  contrasted  with  extinction  by  force,  has 
been  interpreted  again  and  again  by  our  modern  stu- 
dents of  evolution.  Charles  Darwin  himself  pointed  the 
way  in  his  Origin  of  Species  and  Descent  of  Man.  Her- 
bert Spencer  developed  the  theme  in  a  hundred  passages 
in  his  Principles  of  Biology,  Principles  of  Ethics,  and 
Principles  of  Sociology.  Prince  Kropotkin  produced 
a  special  study  of  the  subject  in  his  Mutual  Aid  as  a 
Factor  in  Evolution.  John  Fiske  answered  Huxley's 
doubts  upon  the  question  in  his  Phi  Beta  Kappa  address 
on  The  Cosmic  Roots  of  Love  and  Self -Sacrifice. 
Henry  Drummond  retold  the  story  with  ample  authority 
and  surpassing  beauty  of  phrase  in  his  Ascent  of  Man. 
And  all  pointed  to  the  same  great  fact  that,  from  the 
beginning  of  earthly  life,  two  forces  and  not  one  have 
been  at  work.  On  the  one  side  is  the  physical  force  of 
sheer  brute  strength,  as  exemplified  by  the  lonely 
monsters  of  swamp  and  field.  On  the  other  side  is  the 
spiritual  force  of  mutual  aid,  co-operation,  love,  as  ex- 
emplified in  the  insects,  the  birds,  and  the  herding 
animals.  These  two  forces  have  never  of  course  been 
thus  absolutely  divided.  The  tiger  nursing  her  cubs 
shows  the  entrance  of  love  into  the  most  savage  life. 
The  stags  battling  for  the  doe  show  ferocity  invading 
the  realm  of  association.  But  just  because  of  this 
mingling  of  the  two  tendencies  or  passions  in  every 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  81 

organism,  are  we  enabled  to  see  the  more  clearly  the 
nature  of  the  real  battle  which  is  being  fought.  Here 
is  no  struggle  of  claw  against  claw,  and  fang  against 
fang.  Bernhardi  is  all  wrong  when  he  thus  describes 
the  evolutionary  process.  What  has  really  been  going 
on,  in  the  breast  of  each  individual  animal  as  well  as  in 
the  whole  world  of  organic  life,  is  the  struggle  of  the 
monster  against  the  herd,  of  brute  force  against  mutual 
aid,  of  fierce  aggression  against  co-operation,  of  blast- 
ing hate  against  protecting  love.  Not  two  armed  giants 
battling  for  outward  survival,  but  two  great  principles 
of  action  battling  for  inward  supremacy  —  this  is  the 
tale  of  evolution.  And  its  lesson  is  read  aright  only 
when  force  is  seen  to  be  a  failure,  leading  to  extinction 
all  who  use  its  weapons,  and  love  is  seen  to  be  a  success, 
leading  to  eternal  life  all  who  bow  to  its  commands. 

Of  the  validity  of  this  conclusion,  man  is  of  course 
the  perfect  demonstration.  From  the  purely  physical 
standpoint,  man  is  the  feeblest  of  all  creatures.  He 
cannot  run  like  the  deer,  fly  like  the  eagle,  swim  like  the 
fish,  fight  like  the  lion.  He  has  not  so  much  even  as  a 
coat  of  fur  to  cover  his  body  from  the  cold,  or  a  tooth 
or  claw  or  fang  to  strike  his  enemy  a  blow.  Defenceless 
as  he  is,  he  has  been  driven  by  the  sheer  necessities  of  the 
situation  to  protect  himself  by  the  clever  exercise  of  his 
wits  and  the  ready  sympathy  of  his  comrade.  And  by 
these  weapons,  which  seem  to  be  no  weapons  at  all,  he 
has  to  his  own  surprise  gained  the  mastery  of  the 
physical  world.  Never  was  there  a  clearer  demonstra- 
tion of  the  futility  of  force.  "  From  the  dawn  of  life," 


82  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

says  Drummond,  summing  up  the  whole  matter  in  his 
Ascent  of  Man,  "  two  forces  have  acted  together  (in  the 
evolutionary  process),  one  continually  separating  and 
destroying,  the  other  continually  uniting  and  cherishing. 
Both  are  great  in  nature,  but  the  greatest  of  these  is 
love ! " 

IV 

With  this  crumbling  of  the  foundations  of  the  Bern- 
hardi  doctrine,  the  entire  philosophy  of  force  comes 
tumbling  to  the  ground.  Upon  this  the  whole  case  has 
been  rested,  and  with  this  the  whole  case  disappears. 
An  understanding  of  the  completeness  of  the  wreckage 
cannot  be  had,  however,  unless  we  push  on  from  the 
field  of  biology  to  the  field  of  history,  and  show  from 
the  study  of  man  as  a  social  agent  rather  than  as  an 
evolutionary  product,  how  absolute  is  the  fallacy  of 
force.  And  right  here  I  would  anticipate,  without 
further  delay,  the  objection,  which  must  already  have 
become  apparent,  to  my  description  of  man  as  a  physi- 
cally defenceless  animal.  Man,  you  say,  defenceless ! 
Man  the  feeblest  of  all  creatures !  Man,  the  master  of 
nature  through  the  operation  of  intellectual  and  spir- 
itual forces !  Is  there  anything  which  could  be  more 
ridiculous  than  this?  Why,  man  is  the  most  combative 
of  all  animals.  And  his  battles  have  been  just  as  much 
on  the  physical  plane  as  those  of  any  of  the  lower  ani- 
mals. He  has  used  his  reason,  to  be  sure  —  but  for 
what  purpose  so  exclusively  as  that  of  producing 
weapons  of  offence  more  terrible  than  any  which 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  83 

nature  herself  has  ever  been  able  to  evolve?  He 
has  used  his  associative  instincts,  no  doubt  —  but  to 
what  end  more  effectively  than  that  of  amassing  great 
multitudes  of  his  fellows  for  the  work  of  death  on  so 
vast  a  scale  that  nothing  in  nature  short  of  flood,  fire 
or  famine  has  been  able  to  match  it.  What  man  has 
lacked  in  his  own  body,  he  has  long  since  supplied  by 
inventions  and  manufactures.  He  cannot  run  like  the 
deer  —  but  he  has  the  automobile.  He  cannot  fly  like 
the  eagle  —  but  he  has  the  aeroplane.  He  cannot  swim 
like  the  fish  —  but  he  has  the  submarine.  He  cannot 
fight  like  the  lion  —  but  he  has  swords  and  spears  and 
guns.  He  has  no  actual  protection  for  his  body  —  but 
look  at  his  trenches  and  battleships  and  forts.  He  has 
neither  teeth,  fangs,  nor  claws  —  but  he  has  dread- 
naughts,  42-centimetre  guns,  and  Zeppelin  airships. 
Man,  an  illustration  of  the  triumph  of  love  over  force ! 
Is  not  just  the  opposite  the  case?  Is  not  man  the  su- 
preme illustration  of  force  as  the  determining  factor  of 
survival  ? 

So  it  would  seem,  especially  in  this  age  which  marks 
the  culmination  in  society  of  the  power  of  destructive 
force.  And  yet  I  believe  that,  if  we  look  a  little  closer 
at  this  problem,  we  shall  find  that  the  phenomena  of 
human  history  present  exactly  the  same  story  of 
struggle  between  physical  and  moral  force  as  the  phe- 
nomena of  natural  evolution,  and  point  to  exactly  the 
same  conclusion  of  the  failure  of  force  as  a  conserving 
principle.  What,  indeed,  is  the  story  of  human  prog- 
ress but  the  story  of  the  discovery,  in  every  field  of 


84  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

human  relationship,  of  the  fallacy  of  force,  and  of  its 
gradual  displacement  in  favour  of  love? 

Take,  for  example,  the  domestic  relation !  In  the 
early  days  of  social  development,  a  man  obtained  a  wife 
in  exactly  the  same  way  that  he  obtained  his  dinner. 
He  went  out  and  captured  her  —  took  her  home  by 
force,  held  her  by  force,  and  used  her  by  force.  In 
oriental  countries  we  find  this  practice  still  typified  in 
the  institution  of  the  harem,  where  women  are  held  as 
in  a  prison  behind  barred  windows  and  locked  doors, 
and  under  the  constant  guard  of  eunuchs.  In  the  be- 
ginning, that  is,  the  relationship  between  husband  and 
wife  was  a  relationship  joined  by  force  and  maintained 
by  force ;  and  if  anybody  had  dared  to  assert  that  hus- 
band and  wife  could  be  held  together  in  peace  and  har- 
mony by  any  other  method,  he  would  have  been  held  to 
be  as  crazy  as  the  man  who  to-day  contends  that  peace 
between  the  nations  can  be  secured  by  any  other  means 
than  competitive  armaments,  balances  of  power,  and 
secret  treaties  of  alliance.  Nevertheless,  the  change 
has  come  in  our  day,  because  force  has  proved  itself 
a  failure.  Bolts  are  not  strong  enough,  bars  stout 
enough,  eunuchs  watchful  enough,  to  hold  an  unwilling 
wife  to  an  eager  husband.  The  only  thing  that  can 
hold  her  is  the  surrender  of  her  own  will,  and  this  is  to 
be  won  not  by  compulsion  but  by  love.  To-day  a  man 
does  not  capture  his  wife,  but  woos  her.  He  does  not 
hold  her  to  him  by  chains,  but  binds  her  to  him  by  affec- 
tion. Long  since  has  he  learned  that,  in  the  domestic 


85 

relation  at  least,  there  is  no  compulsion  that  is  so  potent 
and  so  permanent  as  the  passion  of  the  heart.  There- 
fore, to  the  extent  that  he  would  keep  his  wife  fast  to 
his  own  heart,  he  puts  no  bonds  on  her  but  those  of  his 
own  reverent  devotion.  He  loves  her,  serves  her,  cares 
for  her,  worships  her  —  and  lo,  she  is  his  forever ! 

Analogous  to  this  is  the  problem  of  the  treatment  of 
children.  Time  was  when  it  was  implicitly  believed 
that  the  only  way  to  control  and  care  for  children  was 
through  the  use  of  force.  In  Rome,  as  in  other  ancient 
countries,  the  father  was  given  power  of  life  and  death 
over  his  own  offspring.  And  such  a  grant  of  extreme 
authority  was  justified  on  the  ground  that  in  no  other 
way  could  the  growing  boy  or  girl  be  made  obedient  to 
the  parent,  and  the  home  therefore  be  held  together. 
All  such  barbarity  as  this,  of  course,  has  long  since 
passed  away.  And  little  by  little  is  disappearing  as 
well,  from  home  and  school  and  college,  the  twin  bar- 
barity of  corporal  punishment.  For  experience  is 
teaching  us  that,  in  the  case  of  the  child  as  in  the  case 
of  the  wife,  the  use  of  force  always  fails  of  its  appointed 
purpose.  If  the  child  is  to  be  saved,  he  must  be  led  by 
love  and  not  driven  by  blows.  There  must  be  laid  upon 
him  the  compulsion  not  of  passionate  violence,  but  of 
patient  example,  wise  instruction,  affectionate  care. 
To  strike  the  child  is  to  stir  his  anger  and  arouse  his 
fear.  To  love  the  child  is  to  win  his  confidence,  chal- 
lenge his  faith,  hold  his  allegiance.  Even  with  the  in- 
corrigible, the  juvenile  delinquent,  the  out-and-out  de- 


86  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

generate,  the  method  of  force  is  doomed  to  utter  fail- 
ure. For  love  alone  can  hold,  and  alone  therefore  can 
save. 

Another  illustration  of  the  same  truth  comes  to  us 
from  the  field  of  industry.  In  the  early  relationship 
between  employer  and  employe,  as  in  the  early  relation- 
ship between  husband  and  wife  and  between  parent  and 
child,  force  was  again  regarded  as  indispensable.  That 
a  man  could  be  held  to  his  labour  by  any  other  means 
than  that  of  physical  compulsion,  was  believed  to  be  im- 
possible —  and  therefore  we  had  in  primitive  times  the 
universal  institution  of  slavery,  with  its  chains,  its 
whips  and  its  auction-blocks.  Later  epochs  brought  us 
serfdom,  feudalism,  peonage,  and  in  our  own  time  the 
wage  system.  Rut  all  of  these  have  gone,  or  are  rap- 
idly going,  for  each  and  every  one  of  these  relationships, 
just  to  the  extent  that  it  has  been  founded  upon  out- 
ward force  for  its  continuance,  has  proved  itself  a  fail- 
ure and  a  fraud.  Force  has  not  worked  here  any  more 
than  it  has  worked  in  the  home  or  in  the  school.  If 
there  has  been  constant  trouble  in  the  labour  world 
from  the  slave  rebellion  of  Moses  to  the  trade  rebel- 
lions of  'Gene  Debs  and  Tom  Mann,  it  is  because  force 
and  not  goodwill  has  been  the  bond  of  union.  If  there 
is  trouble  and  turmoil  in  the  labour  world  at  this  late 
hour,  it  is  because  compulsion,  dependence,  subordina- 
tion, inequality,  slavery,  still  survive  in  one  form  or 
another.  And  if  peace,  security,  and  happiness  have 
anywhere  been  won  in  the  labour  world  in  the  past  or  in 
the  present,  it  has  been  by  the  application  of  the  age- 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  87 

old  ideals  of  liberty,  equality,  fraternity  between  man 
and  man.  One  thing  is  becoming  clear  in  our  time  in 
the  tangled  problems  of  industry,  even  if  everything 
else  is  still  doubtful.  I  refer  to  the  sweeping  fact  that 
these  problems  are  never  going  to  be  solved  by  strikes, 
lockouts,  police  clubs,  militia  bayonets,  court  injunc- 
tions, McNamara  broils  and  Ludlow  massacres,  but  by 
co-operation,  democracy,  elimination  of  master  and 
servant,  abolition  of  wages  and  profits,  the  union  of  all 
workers  in  all  work  upon  a  single  level  of  comradely 
association.  When  force  is  gone,  and  "  one  equal  tem- 
per of  heroic  hearts  "  is  come  —  our  labour  problem 
will  no  longer  be  a  problem. 

Identical  in  its  lesson  is  the  melancholy  history  of 
prisons  and  prisoners.  Up  to  within  comparatively 
modern  times,  and  still  very  largely  in  our  more  en- 
lightened days,  force  of  the  most  rigorous  description 
has  been  the  one  weapon  universally  commended  and 
used  for  the  control  of  criminals.  Hundreds  of  of- 
fences, running  all  the  way  from  the  murder  of  a  man 
to  the  theft  of  a  pig,  have  been  punished  in  all  coun- 
tries at  various  periods  in  the  past,  with  death.  Less 
than  a  hundred  years  ago,  in  England,  it  was  possible 
to  hang  a  thief  upon  the  gallows.  Along  with  this  ex- 
treme example  of  force,  have  gone  all  manner  of  less 
terrible  examples,  typified  by  such  instruments  of  tor- 
ture as  the  rack,  the  thumb-screw,  the  wheel,  the  stocks, 
the  whipping-post,  the  ducking  stool,  chains,  subter- 
ranean dungeons,  filthy  prisons,  etc.,  etc.  One  shud- 
ders when  one  recalls  how  men  have  for  ages  been 


88  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

broken,  whipped,  strung  up,  fettered,  starved,  buried 
alive,  in  the  sacred  name  of  law  and  order ;  and  one 
shudders  still  more  when  one  recollects  that  this  kind  of 
brutal  treatment  is  still  visited  upon  most  of  our  pris- 
oners in  most  of  our  prisons  at  the  present  moment. 
One  only  has  to  think  of  our  modern  death-houses,  cell- 
blocks,  "  coolers,"  chain-gangs,  bull-rings  and  even 
whipping-posts,  to  realise  how  exclusively  we  are  still 
depending  upon  the  use  of  force  for  the  control  and  re- 
form of  criminals.  And  yet,  from  the  beginning  of  or- 
dered society  down  to  this  very  moment,  such  methods 
have  never  been  anything  but  colossal  failures.  They 
have  never  done  anything  that  they  were  supposed  to  do. 
Capital  punishment  has  never  stayed  the  hand  of  a 
single  murderer.  Chains,  bars,  armed  guards  and 
rigid  discipline,  so  far  from  controlling  men,  have  only 
driven  them  to  madness  and  rebellion.  The  whole  sys- 
tem of  relentless  force,  so  far  from  redeeming  or  reform- 
ing men,  has  only  brutalised  them  into  confirmed  crimi- 
nality. Visit  any  prison  conducted  on  the  old  lines  of 
violent  repression,  and  see  how  its  record  is  one  unvary- 
ing story  of  outbreak,  assaults,  bloodshed,  and  insanity, 
and  its  inmates  one  unvarying  line  of  fourth  and  fifth 
offenders.  In  this  case,  as  in  all  others,  force  is  a  fail- 
ure. And  in  this  case,  as  in  all  others,  the  opposite  of 
force,  namely  reason  and  goodwill,  is  alone  a  success. 
Go  to  the  notorious  Sing  Sing  prison  in  Ossining,  where 
are  confined  some  sixteen  hundred  of  the  vilest  crim- 
inals in  New  York  State,  and  see  the  success  of  Warden 
Osborne  and  his  ideals  of  mutual  welfare.  Armed 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  89 

guards  withdrawn  and  the  men  placed  in  charge  of  con- 
vict officers  in  the  cell-blocks  and  convict  foremen  in  the 
factories,  freedom  of  intercourse  and  association  guar- 
anteed and  fostered,  rules  and  regulations  formulated 
by  the  prisoners  and  their  violation  punished  by  a  court 
of  their  own  choosing,  athletics  encouraged,  honour  sys- 
tems instituted,  recreation  and  school  facilities  provided 
—  with  the  immediate  result  that  rebellions  have  ended, 
sickness  and  insanity  are  steadily  diminishing,  and  con- 
trol is  as  easy  as  formerly  it  was  difficult !  Go  to  Ore- 
gon, and  see  the  prisoners  taken  from  behind  their  iron 
bars  and  granite  walls,  placed  at  work  on  roads,  in  for- 
ests, and  on  the  farms,  and  held  in  bonds  not  by  state 
guards  but  by  convict  leaders  !  Go  to  Colorado  and  see 
prisoners  despatched  hither  and  yon  as  free  men, 
charged  with  the  tasks  of  state,  and  maintaining  in 
strictest  honour  the  imposed  limits  of  their  freedom ! 
Strike  a  man,  and  he  strikes  back  —  confine  him,  and  he 
breaks  away  —  brutalise  him,  and  he  becomes  a  brute. 
But  trust  a  man,  help  him,  love  him,  serve  him,  and  no 
matter  what  his  record  of  crime,  he  responds  in  kind. 

Political  relationships  provide  still  another  illustra- 
tion of  the  same  universal  truth.  For  centuries  men 
believed  that  government  rested  upon  force.  Kings  and 
parliaments  looked  to  Janissaries,  Swiss  Guards,  Black 
Hundreds,  for  their  support,  with  the  result  that  revolu- 
tions were  ever  the  order  of  the  day.  Now,  with  the 
slow  advancement  of  democracy,  we  are  venturing  to 
rest  our  government  not  upon  the  force  of  armed  sol- 
diery, but  upon  the  consent  of  free  citizens  —  with  the 


90  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

result  that  revolutions  are  no  longer  a  part  of  history. 
Peace  comes  to  a  community  when  the  cossack  is  with- 
drawn, and  the  court  of  law  is  established  in  his  place. 
Security  is  held  by  every  citizen,  when  revolvers  and 
knives  are  snatched  from  his  belt,  and  opportunity 
granted  for  the  settlement  of  differences  on  an  equal 
basis  of  reason  and  goodwill.  Life  develops,  flourishes, 
blossoms  in  fragrance  and  beauty,  when  tyranny  is  over- 
thrown and  freedom  won.  Contrast  Turkey  and  Amer- 
ica, the  army  of  the  Sultan  and  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  —  and  we  have  an  all-convincing  ex- 
ample of  the  failure  of  the  sword  and  the  success  of  the 
spirit  in  the  task  of  government. 

A  special  application  of  this  truth  is  seen  in  the  mat- 
ter of  colonial  administration,  more  particularly  as 
exemplified  by  the  experience  of  Great  Britain.  In  the 
eighteenth  century,  England,  like  every  other  colonising 
power  of  that  day,  regarded  the  inhabitants  of  its  colo- 
nies as  subject  peoples,  and  its  territories  across  the 
seas  as  crown  lands.  In  the  case  of  emigre  or  trans- 
ported Englishmen,  of  course,  certain  liberties  were 
granted  or  permitted  which  were  withheld  in  the  case  of 
native  populations.  But  even  upon  these  former  no 
final  governmental  authority  was  bestowed,  and  the  ex- 
ercise of  force  was  regarded  in  the  last  analysis  as  the 
guarantee  of  loyalty.  The  futility  of  this  doctrine  was 
clearly  demonstrated  by  the  successful  revolt  of  the 
Americans  in  1775 ;  and  England  was  wise  enough  to 
see  and  learn  the  lesson  taught  by  this  experience. 
From  that  time  on,  the  British  people  Bounded  their 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  91 

colonial  policies  on  principles  of  liberty  and  not  of  au- 
thority, of  goodwill  and  not  of  force,  with  the  ^result 
that  they  have  builded  during  the  last  one  hundred  years 
an  empire  of  unexampled  stability  and  power.  The  su- 
preme test  of  the  abnegation  of  force  as  a  definite  pol- 
icy of  colonial  administration  came  with  the  outbreak  of 
the  Great  War  in  Europe.  Canada,  New  Zealand,  Aus- 
tralia, these  were  to  all  intents  and  purposes  independ- 
ent principalities.  They  were  not  even  bound  to  Eng- 
land by  the  tie  of  economic  self-interest.  They  had  no 
concern  in  the  European  quarrel,  so  far  as  the  problem 
of  their  own  particular  welfare  was  concerned.  There 
was  no  power  in  the  hands  of  the  mother-country  which 
could  force  them  to  enter  the  struggle  against  Germany, 
if  they  chose  not  to  do  so.  All  such  power  had  long 
since  been  surrendered.  And  yet,  at  the  instant  that 
England  and  Germany  clashed  in  mortal  combat,  the 
free  colonies  of  the  Empire  leaped  into  the  fray,  and 
from  that  day  to  this  have  been  pouring  a  steady  tide 
of  men,  munitions  and  money  into  the  area  of  conflict. 
Even  the  South  African  Republic,  so  lately  conquered 
and  overthrown,  and  so  hazardously  granted  the  priv- 
ilege of  self-government  by  the  Asquith  Ministry,  re- 
sponded to  the  call.  Only  Egypt  and  India  stood,  and 
still  stand,  in  any  doubtful  attitude  of  allegiance  to 
King  George  —  and  these,  be  it  noted,  are  the  very 
colonies  from  which  the  hand  of  force  has  not  yet  been 
lifted.  Just  to  the  extent,  in  other  words,  that  abso- 
lute power  has  been  withdrawn  and  free  relationships 
of  goodwill  substituted,  just  to  that  extent  loyalty  has 


92  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

been  quickened,  security  established,  and  happiness  fos- 
tered. In  this  field,  as  in  all  other  fields  of  human  ac- 
tivity, force  is  a  failure,  and  love  a  demonstrated  suc- 
cess ! 

And  what  is  true  in  all  these  various  relations  of  the 
master,  is  true  also  of  his  victim.  Driven  to  despair  by 
the  bondage  imposed  upon  him,  goaded  to  desperation 
by  nameless  cruelties,  robbed  of  every  weapon  of  revolt 
save  the  ultima  ratio  of  sheer  brute  strength,  the  im- 
prisoned wife,  the  beaten  child,  the  exploited  working- 
man,  the  tortured  convict,  the  political  outlaw  or  re- 
ligious heretic,  have  again  and  again  striven  for  release 
by  pitting  force  against  force,  madness  against  madness. 
Especially  in  the  field  of  politics,  as  in  the  revolutions  of 
'48,  and  in  the  field  of  industry,  as  in  the  labour  strug- 
gles of  the  first  three  quarters  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
has  violence  been  resorted  to  as  the  way  to  emancipation. 
And  in  the  action  of  the  rebel,  exactly  as  in  the  action 
of  the  tyrant,  has  this  resort  been  accompanied  by  al- 
most uninterrupted  failure.  Sometimes,  by  some  mir- 
acle of  chance,  as  in  the  American  Revolution  or  the 
Italian  War  of  Liberation,  the  strength  of  the  revolu- 
tionist has  overcome  the  strength  of  the  ruling  power. 
Sometimes,  by  dint  of  long  previous  preparation,  as  in 
the  Civil  War,  resort  to  arms  has  been  the  last  act  in  a 
struggle  already  determined  by  educational,  political 
and  economic  processes.  But  in  the  vast  majority  of 
cases,  appeal  to  force  has  resulted  either  in  immediate 
disaster,  or,  if  momentarily  successful,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  French  Revolution,  has  but  led,  through  storm, 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  93 

to  the  darkness  of  reaction.  Nothing  in  history  is 
more  pitiful  than  the  oft-told  tale  of  the  helpless  multi- 
tudes madly  beating  themselves  to  pieces  against  the 
unyielding  walls  of  tyranny.  Slave  rebellions,  peas- 
ants' revolts,  Chartist  riots,  Bomba  horrors,  Communes, 
Homestead  massacres,  Ludlow  shambles  —  the  story 
runs  in  an  unbroken  and  bloody  stream  from  Spartacus 
to  John  Lawson ;  and  everywhere  there  is  the  same  fatal 
outcome.  For  one  time  that  force  has  brought  life, 
liberty  and  happiness  to  the  outraged  masses,  a  thou- 
sand times  it  has  brought  death,  bondage,  and  misery. 
Force  is  a  failure  no  less  for  the  rebelling  slave  than  for 
the  repressing  master.  Nay,  for  the  slave  it  is  more 
often  a  failure,  for  in  the  battle  of  strength  against 
strength,  might,  not  right,  must  win.  Inevitably  does 
the  master,  with  his  legions  as  in  Rome,  his  soldiers  as 
in  France  and  Italy,  his  private  guards  and  state  militia 
as  in  America  —  in  one  word,  the  whole  organised  power 
of  society  —  on  his  side,  prove  the  stronger  of  the  two. 
It  was  realisation  of  this  fact,  undoubtedly,  which  led 
Shelley,  an  anarchist  of  the  anarchists,  to  counsel  the 

"  Men  of  England,  heirs  of  glory, 
Heroes  of  unwritten  story, 
Nurslings  of  one  mighty  Mother," 

on  the  occasion  of  the  massacre  at  Manchester,  to  seek 
vengeance  and  liberation  by  methods  peaceable  and  not 
violent.  Thus,  in  his  Mask  of  Anarchy,  did  he  write 

"  Let  a  great  Assembly  be 
Of  the  fearless  and  the  free 


94  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

On  some  spot  of  English  ground 
Where  the  plains  stretch  wide  around. 

"  From  the  corners  uttermost 
Of  the  bounds  of  English  coast; 
From  every  hut,  village,  and  town 
Where  those  who  live  and  suffer  moan 
For  others'  misery  or  their  own, 

"  From  the  workhouse  and  the  prison 
Where  pale  as  corpses  newly  risen, 
Women,  children,  young  and  old 
Groan  for  pain,  and  weep  for  cold  — 

"  From  the  haunts  of  daily  life 
Where  is  waged  the  daily  strife 
With  common  wants  and  common  cares 
Which  sows  the  human  heart  with  tares  • 

"  Let  a  vast  assembly  be, 
And  with  great  solemnity 
Declare  with  measured  words  that  ye 
Are,  as  God  has  made  ye,  free — 

"  Be  your  strong  and  simple  words 
Keen  to  wound  as  sharpened  swords, 
And  wide  as  targes  let  them  be 
With  their  shade  to  cover  ye. 

"Let  the  tyrants  pour  around 
With  a  quick  and  startling  sound, 
Like  the  loosening  of  a  sea, 
Tro9ps  of  armed  emblazonry. 

"  Let  the  charged  artillery  drive 
Till  the  dead  air  seems  alive 
With  the  clash  of  clanging  wheels, 
And  the  tramp  of  horses'  heels. 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  95 

"Let  the  fixed  bayonet 
Gleam  with  sharp  desire  to  wet 
Its  bright  point  in  English  blood 
Looking  keen  as  one  for  food. 

"  Let  the  horsemen's  scimitars 
Wheel  and  flash,  like  sphereless  stars 
Thirsting  to  eclipse  their  burning 
In  a  sea  of  death  and  mourning. 

"  Stand  ye  calm  and  resolute, 
Like  a  forest  close  and  mute, 
With  folded  arms  and  looks  which  are 
Weapons  of  unvanquished  war." 

Similar  realisation  it  is  also,  which  has  created  in 
our  time,  under  the  inspiration  of  Marx  and  Engels, 
and  under  the  guidance  of  Bebel,  Liebknecht  and  Jaures, 
the  great  movement  of  international  socialism,  which 
seeks  the  mastery  of  the  modern  world  not  through  the 
old  methods  of  violent  revolt,  but  through  the  new  and 
nicer  "  methods  of  education,  organisation,  and  political 
action  .  .  .  the  weapons  of  civilisation,"  as  Robert 
Hunter  calls  them  in  his  Violence  and  the  Labour  Move- 
ment. Nothing  in  all  history  is  more  wonderful,  to  my 
mind,  than  the  story  of  the  winning  of  the  labour  move- 
ment in  all  countries  to  the  cause  of  pacifism.  Never 
were  any  people  under  a  heavier  burden  of  oppression, 
and  therefore  under  a  greater  temptation  to  armed  re- 
bellion, than  the  labouring  multitudes  of  our  own  day. 
Never  was  the  sword  of  hate  and  revenge  held  out  to 
their  hands  more  persuasively  than  by  Bakounin  and 
his  terrorist  disciples.  More  than  once,  as  in  the  Char- 


96  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

tist  days  and  on  many  occasions  of  revolt  in  Italy, 
Spain  and  France,  did  the  "  physical  forcists  "  seem 
triumphant  over  the  "  moral  forcists."  Especially  in 
1872,  when  the  International  was  virtually  disbanded, 
did  the  wise  leadership  of  Marx  away  from  terrorism  to 
pacifism  seem  utterly  vain.  But  after  sore  struggle 
the  victory  for  order  as  against  violence  was  won.  And 
to-day  we  have  the  stupendous  spectacle  of  a  vast  inter- 
national body,  12,000,000  in  numbers,  organised  for 
the  conquest  of  the  wealth  and  dominion  of  the  world, 
putting  force  as  a  weapon  of  combat  altogether  aside, 
and  deliberately  choosing  the  counter  weapons  of  the 
pen,  the  platform  and  the  ballot.  "  They  have  refused 
to  hurry,"  says  Mr.  Hunter.  "  They  have  declined  all 
short  cuts.  They  have  spurned  violence."  Never  was 
there  such  a  spectacle !  And  in  it  we  must  see,  not  the 
triumph  of  any  fanatical  idealism,  but  the  calm,  reas- 
oned conviction  of  the  fallacy  of  force  as  a  "  power  of 
deliverance." 

And  so  we  might  go  on,  multiplying  the  illustrations 
of  this  thesis  almost  without  limit.  But  why  continue? 
All  tell  exactly  the  same  story,  and  point  to  exactly  the 
same  conclusion.  Every  relationship  of  human  life  had 
its  beginning  on  the  animal  plane  of  physical  control. 
The  mighty  principle  of  love  was  never  altogether  ab- 
sent even  in  the  struggles  of  the  forest  beasts,  as  we 
have  seen.  But  force  as  the  law  of  life  was  everywhere 
in  the  ascendent.  And  man,  like  his  animal  progeni- 
tors, gave  this  principle  of  life  every  conceivable  chance 
to  prove  its  efficacy.  But  the  more  thorough  the  trial, 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  97 

the  more  convincing  its  failure.  Not  because  love  was 
known  to  succeed,  but  because  force  was  known  to  fail, 
has  man  little  by  little  turned  to  the  one  and  away  from 
the  other.  And  to-day  he  is  solving  his  problems  and 
reaching  his  goal  just  to  the  extent  that  he  is  having 
the  courage  and  wisdom  to  put  his  perfect  trust  in  love. 
Force  avails  nothing,  achieves  nothing,  secures  noth- 
ing. It  is  the  instrument  of  destruction,  and  not  of 
conservation  —  the  agent  of  retreat  and  not  of  advance 
—  the  minister  of  death  and  not  of  life.  With  man,  as 
with  the  animal,  two  forms  have  contended  for  mastery, 
"  one  continually  separating  and  destroying,  the  other 
continually  uniting  and  cherishing."  And  if  man  is 
to-day  something  more  than  an  animal  in  character,  his 
superiority  may  perhaps  be  more  truly  attributed  to 
the  fact  that  he  has  little  by  little  subdued  the  flesh  to 
the  spirit,  mastered  force  in  favour  of  love,  than  any 
other  one  thing.  The  story  of  man's  climb  from  brute- 
hood  to  potential  sainthood  is  the  story  of  his  climb 
from  the  claw  to  the  brain,  from  the  fang  to  the  heart. 
In  the  home,  the  school,  the  church,  the  state,  the  mart, 
he  has  scourged  force  from  him  as  a  traitor,  and  drawn 
love  to  him  as  a  friend.  In  every  field  of  action,  he 
has  tried  more  and  more  to  lead  rather  than  to  drive, 
to  woo  rather  than  to  subdue,  to  serve  rather  than  to 
master,  and  his  perpetual  reward  has  been  peace,  secur- 
ity and  mounting  life. 

v 

In  every  field  of  action  —  save  only  one !     In  the  in- 
ternational field,  little  or  no  progress  has  been  made. 


98  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

Still  to-day,  as  in  the  ancient  days  of  Persian  satraps 
and  Roman  consuls,  relations  between  states  are  founded 
upon  force.  And  yet  where,  in  any  department  of 
human  life,  has  the  futility  of  force  been  more  com- 
pletely demonstrated  than  in  the  department  of  inter- 
nationalism? Consider  for  a  moment  those  particular 
problems  of  the  modern  world  which  were  raised  all 
anew  by  the  outbreak  of  the  Great  War. 

First  of  all,  there  is  the  question  of  peace  —  the  ques- 
tion of  the  method  by  which  peace  between  rival  states 
may  be  most  surely  and  easily  maintained.  The  answer 
that  has  been  given  to  this  problem,  ever  since  the  day 
when  ^Esop  met  the  boar  in  the  forest  sharpening  his 
tusks  against  a  tree,  has  uniformly  been  the  affirmation 
that  the  best  way,  indeed  the  only  way,  for  nations  to 
insure  peace  is  to  make  ready  for  war.  George  Wash- 
ington gave  a  crystal  clear  statement  of  this  position, 
when,  in  his  address  to  the  two  houses  of  Congress  in 
1790,  at  the  time  when  all  Europe  was  bursting  into  the 
conflagration  kindled  by  the  French  Revolution,  he  de- 
clared that  "  to  be  prepared  for  war  is  one  of  the  most 
efficient  means  of  preserving  peace." 

That  there  is  a  certain  superficial  persuasiveness 
about  this  dictum  is  obvious  enough.  And  yet  it  may 
be  well  doubted  if  any  other  theory  of  the  human  in- 
tellect has  ever  offered  quite  so  arrant  a  challenge  to 
experience  and  so  impudent  a  defiance  of  reason  as  this 
hoary  doctrine  of  preparedness.  For  what  have  the  na- 
tions of  the  world  been  doing,  since  the  beginning  of 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  99 

time,  but  preparing  for  war ;  and  when  in  any  age  has 
this  business  of  preparation  ever  brought  anything  but 
war,  war,  war?  The  Sargons,  Sennacheribs  and 
Tiglath-Pilesers  of  old  Assyria,  with  the  possible  ex- 
ception of  the  rival  Pharaohs  of  Egypt,  made  the  might- 
iest war  preparations  of  their  time,  but  it  would  be 
difficult  to  find  a  year  when  they  were  not  waging  war 
against  the  Pharaohs  or  the  Pharaohs  against  them. 
Sparta  was  pre-eminent  among  all  the  cities  of  the 
Grecian  world  for  her  sacrifice  of  every  human  interest 
to  the  things  of  war,  and  she  also  was  pre-eminent  for 
the  number  and  savagery  of  the  wars  which  she  fought. 
Rome  was  the  greatest  military  power  that  mankind  has 
ever  seen  —  and  the  doors  of  the  Temple  of  Janus, 
which  were  opened  in  times  of  war  and  closed  in  times 
of  peace,  were  closed  but  twice,  and  both  times  but  mo- 
mentarily, in  a  period  of  six  hundred  years.  Every 
country  of  the  Middle  Ages  was  organised  on  the  basis 
of  the  feudal  system,  which  was  a  system  constructed 
for  the  express  purpose  of  enabling  an  entire  people  to 
be  prepared  for  war  —  and  every  country  of  the  Middle 
Ages  was  fighting  an  almost  continual  battle  against  its 
neighbours.  The  last  half  of  the  nineteenth  century 
was  a  period  remarkable  for  the  completeness  and 
efficacy  of  its  preparations  for  war  —  but  the  Crimean 
War  of  1855,  the  Danish  War  of  1864,  the  Austrian 
War  of  1866,  the  Franco-Prussian  War  of  1870,  the 
Italian  Wars  of  Liberation,  ending  in  1870,  the  Russio- 
Turkish  War  of  1877,  the  more  recent  Spanish-Ameri- 


100  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

can,  Boer,  Turco-Grecian,  and  Russio-Japanese  Wars, 
and  the  continual  struggles  in  the  Balkans,  are  a  part 
of  the  record  of  this  period. 

It  would  seem  preposterous  that  any  further  demon- 
stration of  the  futility  of  this  principle  of  prepared- 
ness could  be  needed,  after  the  uninterrupted  testimony 
of  something  like  three  thousand  years  of  fighting.  But 
whether  needed  or  not,  a  final  demonstration  came  with 
a  vengeance  in  August,  1914.  Here  for  forty  years 
have  the  nations  of  Europe  been  building  up  such  arma- 
ments as  eye  hath  not  seen,  nor  ear  heard,  nor  the  heart 
of  man  conceived,  in  any  previous  age  of  human  his- 
tory. Never  have  there  been  such  armies  as  those  of 
Germany,  Austria,  Russia  and  France.  Never  has  there 
been  such  a  navy  as  that  of  England.  Never  have  there 
been  such  fortresses  as  those  lining  the  frontiers  and 
shores  of  all  these  states.  Never,  in  other  words,  has 
preparedness  been  so  complete.  Every  citizen  was  a 
soldier  in  active  service  or  reserve.  Every  ship  was  po- 
tentially a  war-vessel  or  transport.  Railroads  were 
constructed  on  strategic  rather  than  commercial  lines. 
Passenger-cars  and  freight-cars  were  measured  in  terms 
not  of  the  passengers  and  freight  they  could  carry  in 
time  of  peace,  but  of  the  soldiers  and  munitions  they 
could  transport  in  time  of  war.  Schools  and  hotels 
were  built  with  an  eye  to  the  possibility  of  their  instant 
transformation  into  barracks  and  hospitals.  If  any- 
thing in  the  way  of  preparation  for  war  was  left  undone 
during  these  years,  the  world  has  yet  to  find  it  out. 
And  now,  as  the  end  of  it  all,  we  behold  not  peace  at  all, 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  101 

but  the  greatest  and  most  terrible  war  in  the  history  of 
mankind  !  The  very  presence  of  armaments  so  complete 
and  so  ready  for  instant  use  made  war  not  impossible 
nor  even  uncertain,  but  inevitable.  Not  one  of  the  na- 
tions, on  those  fateful  days  of  July  and  August,  1914, 
dared  to  wait,  even  twenty-four  hours,  for  negotiations. 
The  risk  of  waiting  was  too  great.  The  advantage  of 
the  first  blow  was  too  vital.  And  prepared  to  strike, 
they  all  struck  —  and  war  in  a  night  was  the  result. 
The  Serbian  ultimatum  was  like  a  spark  in  a  dynamite 
factory.  Explosion  was  immediate  and  universal. 

Thousands  of  years  of  unvarying  experience,  crowned 
in  one  day  by  the  most  stupendous  calamity  of  the  ages, 
have  destroyed  at  last  forever  the  old  idea  that  prepara- 
tion for  war  is  a  guarantee  of  peace.  Never  again  can 
any  man  who  is  sane  argue  for  battleships  and  armies  on 
the  plea  that  these  mechanical  horrors  are  needed  to  pre- 
serve the  peace.  At  last  we  see  what  Charles  Sumner 
saw,  as  long  ago  as  1837,  when  he  said,  in  his  famous 
oration  on  The  True  Grandeur  of  Nations,  "  This  maxim 
is  transmitted  to  us  from  distant  ages,  when  brute  force 
was  the  general  law.  It  belongs  to  the  dogmas  of  bar- 
barism. It  is  the  child  of  suspicion  and  the  forerunner 
of  violence.  It  is  a  mere  prejudice,  sustained  by  vulgar 
example  and  not  by  enlightened  truth.  It  is  a  mis- 
chievous fallacy,  the  most  costly  the  world  has  wit- 
nessed, dooming  nations  to  annual  tribute  in  comparison 
with  which  the  extortions  of  conquest  are  as  the  widow's 
mite."  And  if,  while  seeing  the  fact,  we  do  not  quite 
understand  the  reasons  for  the  fact,  we  have  only  to 


102  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

turn  to  the  unanswerable  statement  of  John  Quincy 
Adams,  then  Ambassador  to  England,  in  his  letter  to 
the  English  premier  on  behalf  of  President  Monroe's 
suggestion  for  disarmament  on  the  border  line  between 
England  and  Canada :  "  The  increase  of  naval  arma- 
ments on  one  side  upon  the  Lakes,  during  peace,  will 
necessitate  the  like  increase  on  the  other,  and  besides 
causing  an  aggravation  of  useless  expense  to  both  par- 
ties, must  operate  as  a  continual  stimulus  of  suspicion 
and  ill-will  upon  the  inhabitants  and  local  authorities 
of  the  borders  against  those  of  their  neighbours.  The 
moral  and  political  tendency  of  such  a  system  must  be 
to  war  and  not  to  peace." 

If  the  Great  War  has  shattered  the  idea  that  force 
can  make  for  peace,  it  has  on  the  other  hand  strength- 
ened immeasurably  the  old-time  doctrine  of  force  as  ap- 
plied to  our  second  problem  —  that  of  security.  Men 
the  world  around  are  looking  upon  stricken  Belgium, 
ravaged  France,  wasted  Galicia,  Poland  and  Bukowina, 
and  with  one  accord  they  are  declaring  that  armaments 
must  be  built  and  maintained  on  a  scale  never  known  be- 
fore, if  only  to  protect  the  nations  from  such  a  dire 
fate  as  has  been  met  by  these  unhappy  people.  So 
long  as  war  is  liable  to  come,  protection  must  be  had 
against  its  incursion,  and  where  can  such  protection  be 
found  except  in  arms?  Peace,  as  we  now  see,  cannot 
be  assured,  even  by  the  method  of  preparation.  But 
preparation,  for  this  very  reason,  is  more  essential  than 
ever  before  in  order  that  we  may  be  secure  when  trouble 
comes.  Safety  we  must  have ;  and  in  the  world  as  it  is 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  108 

now  constituted  at  least,  this  can  be  guaranteed  onl" 
by  resort  to  force. 

It  may  well  be  doubted,  however,  by  those  who  have 
any  knowledge  of  human  experience,  if  this  argument 
for  security  is  any  sounder  than  the  similar  argument 
for  peace,  which  we  have  just  seen  to  be  so  fallacious. 
For  where,  in  all  the  history  of  ancient  and  modern 
times,  is  there  a  single  nation  that  has  ever  found  perma- 
nent security  in  arms?  Assyria,  Babylonia,  Egypt, 
Sparta,  Rome  —  these,  like  the  mighty  monsters  of 
early  biological  times,  were  effectively  protected  against 
all  possibility  of  military  disaster.  Surely  these  peo- 
ples, with  their  swords  and  spears,  their  chariots  and 
horsemen,  their  phalanxes  and  legions,  were  secure  for- 
ever. And  yet,  just  like  these  monsters  with  the  bony 
armour,  the  scythe-like  talons  and  the  sabre-like  teeth, 
they  have  every  one  disappeared.  Assyria  is  but  a 
mound  in  the  desert,  Egypt  but  a  melancholy  wreck  of 
empty  shrines  and  rifled  tombs,  Sparta  a  plain  without 
so  much  as  one  stone  standing  upon  another,  and  Rome 
but  a  legend  "  to  point  a  moral  and  adorn  a  tale."  In 
spite  of  their  armaments,  or  shall  we  say,  because  of 
their  armaments  —  all  of  them  gone,  all  of  them  fallen 
upon  insecurity,  and  perished! 

Later  ages  tell  identically  the  same  story,  in  only 
slightly  different  terms.  Charlemagne,  Charles  V, 
Philip  II,  Charles  XII,  Peter  the  Great,  Frederick  the 
Great,  Napoleon  —  behold  the  geniuses  who  have  sought 
not  merely  glory  but  security  in  arms.  And  all  of 
them  failed  ignominiqusly  in  their  quest.  And  in  our 


104  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

day,  the  same  story  is  being  repeated  still  again.  For 
why  are  not  men  wise  enough,  in  these  dreadful  hours 
of  world  disaster,  to  read  aright  the  lesson  that  is  being 
taught?  Force,  you  say,  must  be  relied  upon  for  se- 
curity? When,  I  answer  you,  was  force  ever  so  im- 
plicitly relied  upon  for  security  as  it  was  yesterday,  and 
when  has  it  ever  brought  disaster  so  complete?  Bel- 
gium was  not  unarmed,  that  she  was  swept  away  to  ruin  ! 
On  the  contrary,  she  had  an  army  proportionally  only 
slightly  smaller  than  that  of  Germany ;  she  had  a 
frontier  lined  with  cannon,  troops  and  forts ;  and  in 
Antwerp  she  had  the  best  protected  city  in  Europe. 
Galicia  was  not  defenceless,  and  therefore  a  prey  to 
Russia !  On  the  contrary,  her  cities  were  fortresses, 
her  railroads  military  highways,  her  mountain-barriers 
citadels,  and  all  her  men  armed  soldiers.  Russia  was 
completely  armed  —  but  disasters  immeasurable  are 
sweeping  down  upon  her.  France  was  strained  to  the 
breaking-point  in  support  of  her  fleet  and  armies  —  and 
the  fairest  and  richest  sections  of  her  territory  are  to- 
day in  the  hands  of  the  enemy.  England's  fleet  sur- 
passed and  still  surpasses  anything  ever  seen  upon  the 
seven  seas  —  but  her  empire  is  trembling  to  its  founda- 
tions with  the  shock  of  war.  Germany,  with  the  great- 
est military  machine  at  her  disposal  the  world  has  ever 
known,  is  already  doomed  to  such  cataclysmic  ruin  as 
has  come  upon  no  people  since  the  fall  of  Spain. 

Force,  you  say,  the  guarantee  of  security?  On  the 
contrary,  force  is  the  guarantee  of  nothing  but  dis- 
aster. For  force  breeds  force,  and  the  work  of  force 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  105 

is  death.  Build  a  battleship,  and  you  arouse  the  sus- 
picion of  your  neighbour,  who  matches  your  one  battle- 
ship with  two.  Construct  a  fort,  and  you  stir  fear 
across  the  border,  and  your  fort  is  straightway  fronted 
by  two  forts.  Raise  an  army  of  a  million  men,  and  all 
the  nations,  disturbed  and  apprehensive,  raise  armies  of 
other  millions  —  and  all  the  world  is  fixed  in  arms. 
France  totters  and  falls  to-day,  because  her  army 
shouted  Revanche  across  the  Alsatian  border.  England 
gasps  in  a  struggle  which  bleeds  her  white,  because  she 
challenged  with  drcadnaughts  the  freedom  of  the  seas. 
Germany  is  doomed  to  certain  extinction,  because  she 
built  a  military  machine  so  terrible  that  all  of  Europe 
lifts  up  arms  against  her. 

"  Lo,  all  our  pomp  of  yesterday, 
Is  one  with  Nineveh  and  Tyre," 

because  it  is  built  upon  the  same  explosive  foundations. 
He  who  seeks  defence  in  force,  brings  force  down  upon 
him.  He  who  sows  the  dragon's  teeth,  reaps  ere  long 
the  crop  of  armed  men.  "  They  that  take  the  sword 
shall  perish  with  the  sword,"  said  Jesus  when  he  bade 
Peter  to  put  up  his  weapon,  and  make  no  resistance  to 
his  arrest.  If  there  is  any  security  in  this  world  of 
chance  and  change,  ignorance  and  hate,  it  is  not  by 
force  that  it  can  come.  Security,  like  peace,  is  the 
fruit  of  love.  It  comes  not  from  violence  but  from 
goodwill.  It  is  maintained  not  by  the  hand,  but  by  the 
heart.  Norman  Angell  sums  up  the  whole  question  in 
his  Arms  and  Industry  when  he  speaks  of  the  remarka- 


106  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

ble  one  hundred  years  of  peace  between  England  and 
America,  and  referring  to  the  lapse  of  any  attempt  of 
either  nation  to  seek  security  against  the  other  by  re- 
sort to  arms,  says,  "  We  have  secured  ourselves  by  the 
only  means  that  will  ever  give  permanent  national 
safety  —  a  better  understanding  of  the  real  character 
of  the  relationship  between  nations." 

And  what  about  the  last  of  these  three  recrudescent 
problems  —  that  of  the  true  character  of  life?  What 
of  Bernhardi's  dictum  that  there  can  be  no  high  and 
noble  life  save  that  which  is  based  on  the  utilisation  of 
force?  What  of  Ruskin's  idea  that  no  great  literature 
and  art  have  ever  been  produced  save  as  a  consequence 
of  war  and  the  war-spirit?  What  of  Professor  Cramb's 
suggestion  that  war  provides  an  exaltation  of  spirit  so 
essential  to  life  at  its  best  that  mankind  will  not  be  will- 
ing to  dispense  with  it  utterly?  Do  such  propositions 
as  these  constitute  a  final  vindication  of  the  gospel  of 
arms,  or  are  they,  on  the  contrary,  a  final  demonstration 
of  the  fallacy  of  this  gospel? 

History  once  more  has  its  conclusive  answer,  for 
those  at  least  who  have  ears  to  hear  its  voice.  For 
what  is  left  to  us  by  these  nations  which  have  lived  by 
the  law  of  force  most  faithfully  and  developed  the  war- 
spirit  therefore  most  consistently?  Chaldea  gives  us 
a  few  statues,  reliefs  and  hieroglyphic  inscriptions ; 
Egypt  some  glorious  temples,  mighty  pyramids  and 
mysterious  sphinxes;  Tyre,  Sidon,  Phoenicia,  mere 
names.  Out  of  all  the  ancient  East,  as  a  supreme  ex- 
pression of  human  genius,  and  a  priceless  treasure  of 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  107 

human  achievement,  comes  only  the  religion  of  the  Jews, 
who  for  centuries  cowered  beneath  the  iron  heels  of  con- 
querors, and  only  twice,  for  momentary  periods  in  the 
great  days  of  David  and  the  Maccabees,  lifted  the  sword 
of  victory  on  the  field  of  battle.  Impressive  is  it  to  re- 
member that  Isaiah  looked  upon  the  fall  of  Samaria, 
watched  the  invasions  of  Sennacherib,  and  shared  in  the 
humiliations  of  Ahaz  and  Hezekiah  —  that  Jeremiah 
flourished  in  the  days  which  witnessed  the  fall  of  Jeru- 
salem and  the  captivity  of  Israel  —  that  Deutero-Isaiah, 
the  greatest  spiritual  genius  of  the  Jewish  race  before 
Jesus,  lived  amid  the  supreme  sorrows  of  the  Exile  — 
and  that  Jesus  himself  came  at  a  time  when  the  dark- 
ness of  Roman  conquest  and  dominion  was  over  all  the 
land  of  Palestine. 

Identical  is  the  story  of  the  classic  world.  Four 
names  are  here  supreme  from  the  standpoint  of  mili- 
tarism —  Sparta,  Macedonia,  Carthage  and  Rome. 
But  wherein,  with  the  exception  of  the  last,  have  these 
names  significance  to-day?  Sparta  is  the  warrior-state 
par  excellence  —  but  she  left  nothing  to  posterity  but  a 
few  doubtful  legends  of  martial  heroism  and  endurance. 
Macedonia  produced  Philip,  Alexander  and  the  match- 
less phalanxes  which  followed  these  conquerors  to  war 
—  and  perished  of  exhaustion.  Carthage  dyed  sea 
and  land  with  blood,  but  is  now  remembered  only  as  the 
occasion  of  Cato's  cry  for  vengeance  and  the  scene  of 
Scipio's  meditation  on  the  futility  of  arms.  As  for 
Rome,  she  gave  to  us  her  laws,  a  worthy  heritage ;  but 
she  was  barbaric  to  the  end,  and  gained  a  civilisation 


108  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

only  as  she  robbed  of  art,  literature,  and  religion  the 
nobler  principalities  which  she  conquered. 

It  is  in  our  own  day,  however,  that  we  find  the  su- 
preme example  of  the  antagonism  of  militarism  and 
civilisation  in  the  case  of  Germany.  For  centuries,  the 
German  people  were  peaceful  traders,  hard-working 
peasants,  and  raptured  dreamers.  Political  power  was 
unknown  to  them,  and  military  greatness  undesired. 
And  these  were  the  days,  be  it  noted,  when  her  life  was 
purest,  and  her  spirit  at  its  zenith  of  achievement.  It 
was  feeble  and  divided  Germany  which  gave  us  the  long 
line  of  noble  mystics  from  Tauler  and  Meister  Eck- 
hart  to  Herder  and  Schleiermacher  —  Martin  Luther 
and  the  Reformation  —  the  literature  of  Lessing,  Schil- 
ler, Goethe  and  Heine  —  the  music  of  Bach,  Beethoven, 
Haydn,  Mozart,  and  Schubert  —  the  philosophy  of 
Leibnitz,  Kant,  Fichte,  and  Schelling  —  the  scholarship 
of  Wolf,  Strauss,  Baur,  Niebuhr,  and  Ranke.  Then, 
in  the  eighteenth  century,  came  the  Great  Elector  and 
Frederick,  and  the  beginnings  of  Prussian  militarism. 
Then  came  the  Napoleonic  Wars,  with  their  poisonous 
progeny  in  the  persons  of  Stein,  Scharnhorst,  and 
Gneisenau.  The  days  of  '48  were  a  brief  awakening 
from  the  creeping  hypnotism  of  the  times.  But  Bis- 
marck and  Moltke,  the  veritable  incarnation  of  blood 
and  iron,  soon  came  upon  the  scene,  and  Germany  was 
lost.  From  that  day  to  this  Germany  has  been  obsessed 
with  the  ideal  of  force,  greediness,  power ;  and  from  that 
day  to  this,  her  true  life  has  atrophied  and  slowly  died. 
If  1870  marks  the  beginning  of  German  imperialism,  it 


THE  FALLACIES  OF  FORCE  109 

marks  as  well  the  close  of  German  culture.  And  if  the 
political  and  military  doom  now  impending  upon  the 
Empire  can  bring  any  compensation  for  its  attendant 
miseries  and  horrors,  it  is  that  the  German  spirit, 
"  sleeping,  but  not  dead,"  may  rise  and  lead  the  world 
again  to  paths  of  light. 

Force,  therefore,  has  no  connection  with  abundant 
life,  save  as  it  chokes  its  springs,  diverts  its  flow,  and 
poisons  its  purity.  If  civilisation  flourishes  in  days 
of  military  splendour,  as  in  Athens  after  the  Persian 
Wars,  in  Venice  in  the  triumphant  days  of  the  great 
Doges,  or  in  England  in  the  reign  of  the  Good  Queen 
Bess,  it  is  for  reasons  extraneous  to  feats  of  arms.  It 
is  in  spite  of  war,  and  never  because  of  war,  that  the 
spirit  of  man  attains.  In  the  case  of  the  antedeluvian 
animals,  as  we  have  seen,  the  armaments  which  they  car- 
ried were  so  heavy  that  their  energies  were  available 
for  no  other  and  higher  purpose  than  that  of  physical 
maintenance.  The  battles  of  these  creatures  were  so 
fierce  and  constant  that  every  nobler  instinct  of  co- 
operation, friendliness  and  compassion  was  atrophied 
from  disuse.  The  same  thing  is  true  in  the  case  of 
man.  It  was  when  brain  development  began  to  take  the 
place  of  body  development,  says  Alfred  Russel  Wal- 
lace, that  the  advance  of  man  to  the  higher  reaches  of 
intellect  and  spirit  had  its  beginning.  Both  forms  of 
development  could  not  go  on  together.  The  flesh  must 
yield  place  to  the  spirit,  if  the  spirit  was  to  expand. 
And  not  otherwise  is  it  with  nations.  Herbert  Spencer 
traced  the  true  analogy  in  his  Principles  of  Sociology, 


110  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

in  his  elaborate  account  of  the  passing  of  militarism 
and  the  rise  of  industrialism.  If  the  soul  is  to  live,  it 
must  be  freed ;  and  the  fetters  which  bind  it,  and  have 
always  bound  it,  are  those  forged  by  the  hand  of  force. 

VI 

The  failure  of  force,  as  a  working  principle,  must 
by  now  be  manifest.  It  is  demonstrated  by  the  bi- 
ological history  of  the  race;  it  is  demonstrated  by  the 
individual  and  social  relationships  of  men ;  it  is  demon- 
strated by  the  rise  and  fall  of  states.  Force  and  love 
—  the  power  that  separates  and  destroys,  and  the  power 
that  unites  and  cherishes  —  here  are  the  two  contend- 
ing giants  of  the  cosmos.  They  have  wrestled  long, 
and  are  still  wrestling.  Bait  little  by  little,  as  age 
passes  into  age  and  aeon  into  aon,  force  is  seen  to  be 
growing  weaker  and  love  stronger.  "  God's  in  his 
heaven,"  after  all  I  Force  is  failing,  because  it  is  alien 
to  God.  Love  is  rising,  because  it  is  of  the  very  essence 
and  potency  of  the  Divine.  Isaiah  had  clear  vision 
when  he  looked  into  the  future  and  saw  the  coming  of 
the  day  when  force  should  be  wholly  overcome,  and  love, 
with  its  sweet  ministers  of  peace,  security  and  happi- 
ness, everywhere  supreme.  How  wonderful,  and  how 
true  as  well,  the  picture  which  he  painted.  "  The  wolf," 
he  said,  "  shall  dwell  with  the  lamb,  and  the  leopard 
shall  lie  down  with  the  kid ;  and  the  calf  and  the  young 
lion  and  the  fatling  together." !  And  as  the  crowning 
touch  of  all,  the  great  prophet  proclaimed,  that  "  a  little 
child,"  at  once  the  weakest  and  the  loveliest  thing  of 
earth,  "  shall  lead  them." 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE  MEANING  OF  NON-RESISTANCE 


"  I  believe  in  the  spirit  of  peace  and  in  sole  and  absolute  reliance 
on  truth.  ...  I  do  not  believe  that  the  weapons  of  liberty  ever 
have  been,  or  ever  can  be,  the  weapons  of  despotism.  I  know 
that  those  of  despotism  are  the  sword,  the  revolver,  the  cannon, 
the  bombshell;  and  therefore  the  weapons  to  which  tyrants  cling 
and  upon  which  they  depend  are  not  the  weapons  for  me  as  a 
friend  of  liberty.  .  .  .  Much  as  I  detest  the  oppression  exercised 
by  the  Southern  slave-holder,  he  is  a  man,  sacred  before  me.  He 
is  a  man,  not  to  be  harmed  by  my  hand  nor  with  my  consent.  .  .  . 
He  is  a  sinner  before  God  —  a  great  sinner ;  yet,  while  I  will  not 
cease  reprobating  his  injustice,  I  will  let  him  see  that,  in  my  heart 
there  is  no  desire  to  do  him  harm  .  .  .  and  that  I  have  no  other 
weapon  to  wield  against  him  but  the  simple  truth  of  God,  which 
is  the  great  instrument  for  the  overthrow  of  all  iniquity  and  the 
salvation  of  the  world," — •  William  Lloyd  Garriton, 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE    MEANING    OF    NON-RESISTANCE 

IT  must  be  tolerably  evident,  at  this  point  of  our  dis- 
cussion, that  the  champion  of  the  gospel  of  force  has 
fallen  very  far  short  of  discharging  the  burden  of  proof 
which  we  saw  some  time  ago  was  laid  upon  him  by  the 
nature  of  the  question.  Force,  we  discovered,  was  like 
fire,  dynamite,  or  poison  in  that  it  was  too  dangerous 
to  be  used  excepting  under  the  most  rigid  conditions 
and  for  the  most  necessary  purposes.  Anybody  who 
desires  to  employ  it  must  prove,  beyond  peradventure 
of  a  doubt,  that  nothing  else  will  do  the  work  which 
must  be  done,  and  that  force  itself  will  do  this  work 
successfully. 

The  attempt  to  give  this  proof,  however,  has  failed 
most  lamentably,  as  we  have  just  been  seeing.  View  it 
from  any  angle,  subject  it  to  any  test,  try  it  under  any 
conditions,  and  always  and  everywhere  force  shows  it- 
self to  be  a  failure.  It  simply  will  not  work  —  or,  if  it 
works  at  all,  accompanies  its  action  with  such  fearful 
consequences  of  ill  that  the  end  is  lost  almost  before  it 
is  won.  Every  argument  ever  offered  on  behalf  of  force 
has  sooner  or  later  turned  out  to  be  at  the  worst  a 
calamity  and  at  the  best  a  sadly  mixed  good.  The 
whole  progress  of  life,  at  every  stage  of  its  existence 
and  in  every  form  of  its  development,  has  been  de- 

113 


114  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

pendent  upon  the  restriction  of  force  within  ever  nar- 
rower and  narrower  bounds  and  the  expansion  of  love 
to  ever  wider  and  wider  areas.  Force,  as  Jesus  clearly 
stated,  is  the  wide  gate  and  broad  way  "  that  leadeth 
to  destruction."  To  bar  this  gate  and  way,  and  open 
wide  the  strait  gate  and  narrow  way  "  that  leadeth  unto 
life,"  was  the  endeavour  of  the  Nazarene,  and  still  re- 
mains to-day  the  unfulfilled  endeavour  of  mankind. 


This  brings  us  immediately  to  the  discussion  of  non- 
resistance,  as  the  extreme  form  of  pacifism,  and  the 
logical  antithesis  therefore  of  force.  And  first  of  all, 
to  the  very  particular  discussion  of  the  meaning  of  the 
term !  For  most  people,  as  I  discover  from  expe- 
rience, have  not  the  slightest  idea  of  what  non-re- 
sistance really  implies  as  a  philosophy  of  conduct.  And 
this  very  largely  for  the  reason,  as  I  take  it,  that  the 
word  which  is  used  to  denote  this  philosophy,  is  an  ab- 
solute misnomer !  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  non- 
resistance  as  a  word  implies  just  the  opposite  of  what 
non-resistance  as  a  programme  of  life  really  means. 
Therefore  do  I  propose,  in  the  first  place,  to  define  non- 
resistance  from  an  abstract  point  of  view,  with  a  con- 
siderable degree  of  elaboration.  Then  I  shall  proceed 
to  illuminate  this  definition  by  considering  at  some 
length  the  teachings  and  careers  of  the  more  conspicu- 
ous exemplars  of  non-resistance  in  ancient  and  modern 
times.  This  somewhat  prolonged  discussion  will  give 
us,  I  trust,  an  accurate  conception  of  what  this  doc- 


THE  MEANING  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      115 

trine  really  involves  as  a  rule  of  life ;  and  prepare  us  to 
consider  the  more  immediately  vital  question  as  to  what 
we  may  be  able  to  do  with  non-resistance. 

ii 

The  phrase,  non-resistance,  has  its  origin  in  the 
famous  passage  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  wherein 
Jesus  declares  his  opposition  to  the  Mosaic  law  of  re- 
taliation. "  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,"  the 
statement  runs,  "  an  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a 
tooth.  But  I  say  unto  you,  Resist  not  evil."  It  must 
not  be  presumed  from  this  fact  that  there  were  no  non- 
resistants  in  the  world  before  the  advent  of  the  Naza- 
rene.  On  the  contrary,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  next  chap- 
ter, there  were  non-resistants  before  Jesus,  just  as  there 
were  kings  before  Agamemnon.  But  Jesus  gave  so 
clear  a  formulation  of  this  doctrine  in  his  teachings, 
and  exemplified  the  doctrine  with  so  matchless  a  de- 
gree of  heroism  in  his  life,  that  it  is  eminently  fitting  that 
it  should  have  become  uniquely  associated  with  his  name 
and  have  found  immortal  expression  in  his  words. 

An  examination  of  the  phrase,  to  which  I  have  re- 
ferred, shows  that  it  involves  two  definite  propositions. 
On  the  one  hand,  there  is  the  statement  of  fact,  "  evil  " ; 
and  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  the  ethical  command, 
*'  resist  not."  There  is  first  the  recognition  of  evil  in 
the  world;  and  secondly  the  recommendation  as  to  the 
attitude  which  we  are  to  assume  toward  this  evil.  Any 
proper  understanding  of  the  doctrine  involved,  there- 
fore, demand.?  an  explanation  of  what  Jesus  meant  by 


116  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

evil,  and  what  he  had  in  mind  when  he  bade  his  disciples 
not  to  resist  this  evil. 

Many  persons  have  assumed  that  the  word  "  evil," 
as  used  in  this  connection,  refers  to  everything  which 
may  be  regarded  as  in  any  way  obstructive  or  hostile  to 
the  physical  and  moral  integrity  of  the  human  race. 
Thus  they  have  included  in  the  category  of  evil,  such 
natural  phenomena  as  fires,  tempests,  floods,  and  vol- 
canic eruptions  —  such  specimens  of  organic  nature  as 
serpents,  wild  beasts,  and  poisonous  insects  —  such  un- 
necessary and  baleful  horrors  of  human  life  itself  as 
famine,  pestilence,  poverty,  and  war.  These  persons 
have  interpreted  the  word  "  evil,"  in  other  words,  in  the 
most  literal,  which  means  the  most  inclusive,  sense  pos- 
sible, and,  interpreting  the  command,  "  resist  not,"  with 
similar  literalness,  have  come  to  the  obviously  ridiculous 
conclusion  that  the  gospel  of  non-resistance  means  flatly 
that  we  should  offer  no  resistance  to  any  form  of  evil. 

It  should  be  hardly  necessary  to  point  out,  in  the 
light  of  this  reductio  ad  absurdum,  that  a  very  definite 
limitation  must  be  placed  on  this  word  "  evil."  Nor 
will  it  be  in  any  way  difficult  to  prove  that  Jesus  had 
this  limitation  very  clearly  in  mind  when  he  formulated 
his  commandment.  Thus,  as  we  read  the  complete 
passage,  as  it  appears  in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  it  is 
evident  that  the  Nazarene  was  talking  not  about  floods, 
or  snakes,  or  pestilences,  but  about  human  beings  and 
what  human  beings,  in  their  selfishness  and  greed,  are 
liable  to  do  to  one  another.  "  Whosoever  shall  smite 
thee  upon  the  right  cheek,"  is  his  statement,  "  turn  to 


THE  MEANING  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      117 

him  the  other  also.  And  if  a  man  sue  thee  at  the  law, 
and  take  away  thy  coat,  let  him  have  thy  cloak  also. 
And  whosoever  shall  compel  thee  to  go  a  mile,  go  with 
him  twain."  It  is  perfectly  clear,  from  the  context  of 
the  passage,  in  other  words,  that  Jesus  was  here  using 
the  word  "  evil "  not  in  its  universal  application  to 
all  unfavourable  phenomena  of  the  world,  but  in  its 
narrower  application  to  the  sins  and  aberrations  of 
human  conduct.  He  was  speaking  not  of  evil  in  gen- 
eral, but  very  particularly  of  the  evil  that  may  be 
wrought  by  one  man  upon  another.  This  means  that 
the  doctrine  of  non-resistance  is  to  be  interpreted  very 
strictly  as  a  doctrine  of  human  relationships.  The 
question  which  it  raises  is  not  the  question  as  to  what 
we  shall  do  when  we  find  ourselves  set  upon  by  storms 
or  wild  beasts  or  wretched  poverty,  but  what  we  shall 
do  when  confronted  with  the  malicious  and  violent  ac- 
tions of  our  fellow-beings. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  non-resistant,  in  all  the  great 
areas  of  experience  outside  the  comparatively  narrow 
bounds  of  the  human-circle,  is  privileged  to  live  exactly 
like  other  people.  He  may  wear  clothes  to  protect  him- 
self against  the  cold,  and  raise  a  roof  over  his  head  to 
shelter  him  from  the  elements.  He  may  shoot  the  lion 
and  the  bear,  and  bruise  without  compunction  the  ser- 
pent's head.  If  he  plunges  into  some  dangerous  wilder- 
ness, as  Theodore  Roosevelt  plunged  into  the  forests  of 
Brazil,  he  may  freely  follow  Mr.  Roosevelt's  militant 
example  of  carrying  along  a  medicine  chest  to  resist  the 
ravages  of  jungle- fever,  and  may  arm  himself  with  a 


118  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

rifle  to  protect  himself  against  the  attacks  of  wild 
beasts.  It  is  not  even  obligatory  upon  the  consistent 
non-resistant  to  have  his  door  unlocked  and  his  house 
unguarded  by  day  and  night.  The  good  Monseigneur 
Bienvenu,  in  Victor  Hugo's  Les  Miserables,  to  be  sure, 
always  left  his  door  open,  so  that  any  chance  passer-by 
might  freely  cross  his  threshold.  But  it  is  to  be  noted 
that,  while  this  practice  may  have  been  a  result  of  the 
saintly  Bishop's  non-resistance  principles,  it  was  de- 
fended by  him  as  a  practice  enjoined  upon  him  by  the 
ideals  of  the  priesthood.  Just  as  the  door  of  the  phy- 
sician's house,  he  said,  should  never  be  closed,  so  the 
door  of  the  priest's  house  should  always  be  open.  The 
matter  of  placing  bolts  on  our  doors  has  nothing  to  do 
with  non-resistance  as  such.  This  principle  here  comes 
into  play,  not  when  we  bar  our  homes  against  unwel- 
come or  inconvenient  intrusion,  but  when  we  find  our- 
selves standing  face  to  face  with  a  man  who  has  shat- 
tered our  bolts,  and  are  forced  to  take  some  kind  of 
personal  action  toward  this  human  invader. 

That  we  are  taking  no  undue  liberties  with  our  text, 
in  thus  interpreting  the  word  "  evil  "  to  mean  in  this 
connection  nothing  more  than  the  evil  which  may  be 
done  by  men,  is  shown  most  impressively  by  the  fact 
that,  when  the  King  James  Version  of  the  Bible  was 
revised  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
this  very  passage  which  we  are  discussing  was  one  of 
those  which  was  made  to  undergo  a  radical  change  in 
phraseology.  In  the  Revised  Version,  we  no  longer 
read,  "  Resist  not  evil."  These  words  have  disap- 


THE  MEANING  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      119 

peared,  and  in  their  place  appears  the  much  more  ex- 
plicit statement,  "  Resist  not  him  that  is  evil."  When 
Jesus  laid  down  this  law  of  non-resistance,  in  other 
words,  he  used  not  a  generic  noun,  but  a  personal  pro- 
noun and  a  modifying  clause.  Which  shows  us,  if 
anything  can  show,  that  Jesus  was  talking  not  about 
evil  things  but  about  evil  men ! 

Much  more  important  than  the  question  as  to  what 
Jesus  meant  by  the  word  "  evil,"  is  the  question  as  to 
what  he  meant  by  the  command,  "  resist  not."  It  is 
interesting  to  learn  that  when  Jesus  spoke  of  "  evil," 
he  was  really  speaking  of  "  him  that  is  evil."  But 
how  does  this  help  us  any  with  the  problem  of  non-re- 
sistance, for  surely  "  the  evil  that  men  do  "  is  even 
more  destructive  and  terrible  than  the  evil  wrought  by 
the  blind  fury  of  nature.  It  is  encouraging  to  know 
that  we  may  shoot  a  lion  or  smite  a  rattle-snake,  but 
how  does  this  help  those  of  us  who  have  to  face  not 
lions  or  rattle-snakes,  but  pickpockets,  burglars  and 
gunmen  ? 

The  very  statement  of  this  inquiry  reveals  the  fact 
that  the  term,  "  resist  not,"  is  commonly  understood 
in  as  erroneous  a  fashion  as  the  term,  "  evil,"  which  we 
have  just  been  considering.  Most  people,  undoubt- 
edly, take  this  phrase  to  mean  exactly  what  it  says  — 
that  we  shall  not  resist  in  any  way  any  of  the  assaults 
on  property  and  life  which  evil  men  may  direct  against 
us.  The  consistent  non-resistant  must  under  all  cir- 
cumstances remain  inactive,  passive,  acquiescent.  He 
must  accept  any  injury  that  may  be  brought  upon  him 


120  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

by  a  human  hand  —  surrender  to  any  brute  that  may 
attack  him.  He  must  be  willing  to  see  his  home  bur- 
glarised, himself  assaulted,  his  wife  violated,  his  little 
child  beaten  to  death,  and  yet  do  nothing  in  opposi- 
tion. He  must  be  content  to  see  his  country  invaded, 
ravaged,  conquered,  laid  under  tribute  by  a  foreign 
foe,  and  yet  lift  no  sword  or  rifle  in  its  defence.  He 
must,  in  a  word,  let  evil  have  its  own  way  in  the  world 
of  men,  and  lift  not  so  much  as  a  little  finger  against  it. 
The  "  sea  of  troubles  "  may  threaten  to  engulf  the 
world,  but  he  must  on  no  account  "  take  up  arms  " 
and  by  "  opposing  end  them  " ! 

Now  such  a  literal  interpretation  of  the  words,  "  re- 
sist not,"  as  the  above,  must  be  described  as  just  as  un- 
tenable, and  therefore  as  ridiculous,  as  the  similar  in- 
terpretation of  the  word,  "  evil."  It  is  here  that  we 
are  made  to  see,  with  perfect  clearness,  what  an  abso- 
lute misnomer  the  phrase  "  non-resistance "  is,  after 
all,  and  how  necessary  it  is  to  define  and  illustrate  it 
at  great  length.  If  passivity,  acquiescence,  cowardice 
of  this  kind  is  what  non-resistance  involves,  it  is  use- 
less to  expect  that  any  man  worthy  of  the  name  will 
adopt  it  as  a  rule  of  life ;  and  it  may  well  be  wondered 
how  in  the  past  it  has  won  the  allegiance  of  so  many 
pure  and  knightly  souls. 

It  is  evident  that  there  is  something  wrong  some- 
where. Let  us  turn  back  to  our  context  once  again, 
and  see  if  we  can  find  out  what  it  is. 

In  the  passage  which  we  are  considering,  it  is  no- 
ticeable that  Jesus  introduces  his  commandment  of  non- 


THE  MEANING  OF  NON-RESISTANCE 

resistance  with  the  statement,  "  Ye  have  heard  that  it 
hath  been  said,  An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a 
tooth."  Now  in  this  reference  to  the  previous  custom 
of  Israel,  as  in  all  the  similar  references  in  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  the  Nazarene  very  obviously  had  in  mind 
certain  laws  in  the  old  Mosaic  code.  He  was  thinking 
of  such  a  passage  as  this  from  Exodus  — "  If  any  mis- 
chief follow,  then  thou  shalt  give  life  for  life,  eye  for 
eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  hand  for  hand,  foot  for  foot, 
burning  for  burning,  wound  for  wound,  stripe  for 
stripe  " ;  or  this  from  Leviticus,  "  If  a  man  cause  a 
blemish  in  his  neighbour,  as  he  hath  done,  so  shall  it  be 
done  to  him:  breach  for  breach,  eye  for  eye,  tooth  for 
tooth  " ;  or  this  from  Deuteronomy,  "  Life  shall  go  for 
Jife,  eye  for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  foot  for  foot."  For 
centuries  the  Jewish  people  had  been  conducting  their 
affairs  upon  this  basis  of  out-and-out  retaliation. 
They  were  acting  on  the  principle  that  injury  must  be 
met  with  injury,  violence  with  violence,  evil  with  the 
same  kind  of  evil.  And  it  was  nothing  more,  and  also 
nothing  less,  than  this  specific  principle  of  action  that 
Jesus  was  combating  when,  after  quoting  the  Mosaic 
code,  he  declared,  with  unexampled  audacity,  "  But  I 
say  unto  you,  Resist  not  evil."  Resist  not  evil  with 
evil  —  do  not  attempt  to  meet  violence  with  violence,  or 
force  with  force.  It  is  necessary,  of  course,  that  evil 
should  be  resisted  and,  if  possible,  overcome.  The 
world  could  not  endure  for  an  hour  if  evil  men  were  al- 
lowed to  go  on  unrcsisted.  But  do  not  resist  evil  with 
its  own  weapons.  Do  not  be  guilty  of  the  folly  and 


NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

iniquity  of  taking  an  eye  for  an  eye,  a  tooth  for  a  tooth, 
or  a  life  for  a  life.  If  this  is  the  only  way  that  you 
know  of  resisting  evil  of  this  kind,  then  do  not  resist  at 
all.  For  it  is  better  that  one  eye,  one  tooth,  one  life 
should  be  taken,  unavenged,  than  that  two  eyes,  two 
teeth,  two  lives  should  be  taken  for  any  reason ! 

That  this  interpretation  may  not  be  thought  to  be, 
in  any  sense  of  the  word,  a  dodging  of  the  issue  or  a 
juggling  of  terms,  let  me  cite  the  testimony  on  this  point 
of  Count  Leo  Tolstoi,  who  was  a  literalist  in  his  inter- 
pretation of  the  words  of  Scripture,  if  there  ever  was 
one.  Those  who  condemn  his  teachings  most  severely 
base  their  indictment  almost  entirely  upon  the  liberal- 
ism of  his  exegesis.  His  critics  will  in  all  probability 
never  cease  dwelling  upon  the  paradox  that  the  author 
of  the  thrillingly  imaginative  War  and  Peace,  Anna 
Karenma,  and  Resurrection,  is  also  the  author  of  the 
dry-as-dust  treatises  on  My  Religion  and  The  Gospel  in 
Brief.  And  yet  it  is  this  extreme  literalist  who,  when 
he  comes  to  consider  the  phrase,  "  Resist  not  evil,"  tells 
us,  "  Christ  showed  me  that  the  fourth  temptation  de- 
structive of  my  welfare  is  the  resort  to  violence  for  the 
resistance  of  evil.  ...  I  cannot  yield  to  the  first  im- 
pulse to  resort  to  violence ;  I  am  obliged  to  renounce  it, 
and  to  abstain  from  it  altogether."  And  if  we  want 
further  confirmation  of  this  same  fact,  we  have  only  to 
turn  from  the  words  of  Tolstoi  to  the  life  of  Tolstoi, 
which  was  one  long  battle  against  the  political,  social, 
and  religious  evils  of  Russia,  and  indeed  of  all  western 


THE  MEANING  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      123 

civilisation.     He  met   force  —  but  not  with   force ;  he 
resisted  evil  —  but  not  with  evil ! 

Here,  now,  are  the  two  distinctions  or  qualifications 
which  must  be  kept  constantly  in  mind  if  we  are  to 
understand  aright  the  doctrine  of  non-resistance. 
"  Evil  "  means  "  him  that  is  evil  " ;  "  resist  not  "  means 
resist  not  with  evil ;  the  entire  command,  "  resist  not 
evil,"  means  resist  not  the  evil  of  him  that  is  evil  with 
evil  of  your  own.  St.  Paul,  in  writing  to  the  Romans 
in  interpretation  of  this  very  passage  which  we  are 
considering,  summed  up  the  whole  matter  with  marvel- 
lous precision,  when  he  said,  "  Recompense  to  no  man 
evil  for  evil  "/ 

m 

Not  yet,  however,  have  we  explained  all  that  is  in- 
volved in  the  non-resistant  principle.  Thus  far  we 
have  spoken  only  of  the  negative  side  of  the  question  — 
what  we  cannot  do ;  beyond  this  lies  the  positive  side  of 
the  question  —  what  we  can  do  —  which  is  so  infinitely 
more  important.  For  nothing  is  more  dangerous,  and 
at  the  same  time  more  common,  than  the  idea  that  the 
removal  of  the  possibility  of  resisting  evil  with  evil  is 
equivalent  to  the  removal  of  the  possibility  of  resisting 
evil  altogether.  Let  it  be  set  down  in  this  place  once 
for  all,  that  the  evil  in  the  world  not  only  can  be  re- 
sisted, but  must  be  resisted.  It  is  the  first  duty,  the 
whole  duty,  of  man,  to  hate  iniquity  and  love  righteous- 
ness —  to  abhor  that  which  is  evil  and  cleave  to  that 


NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

which  is  good.  There  can  be  no  question  as  to  our 
permanent  obligation  to  make  this  world  the  best  pos- 
sible of  all  worlds  by  wiping  out  its  evil  and  fostering 
its  good.  The  only  question  involved  is  as  to  the 
methods  to  be  followed,  the  weapons  to  be  used,  in  our 
fulfilment  of  our  duty,  and  the  non-resistant  doctrine  is 
an  answer  to  this  question.  Not  ends  at  all,  but  means, 
are  what  we  are  concerned  with  in  our  discussion  of 
non-resistance.  Violent  means,  as  we  have  seen,  are  al- 
together excluded.  Now  comes  the  query  as  to  what 
means  can  be  adopted  in  place  of  violence  to  attain  our 
end.  And  to  this  query  I  venture  to  submit  three  sug- 
gestions. Paradoxical  as  it  may  seem,  there  are  three 
methods  of  resisting  evil  which  are  not  in  any  sense  in- 
consistent with  non-resistance.  The  most  thorough- 
going non-resistant  may  —  nay,  must  —  resist  and 
overcome  him  that  is  evil  by  one  or  all  of  the  three  ways 
here  laid  down. 

First  of  all,  as  the  least  effective  and  least  advisable 
of  the  three  non-resistant  methods  of  resistance,  must 
be  named  what  is  commonly  known  as  "  passive  resist- 
ance." The  passive  resistant  may  be  briefly  and  ac- 
curately described  as  the  complete  non-conformist. 
He  is  the  man  who  finds  himself  confronted  by  some 
law  or  condition  or  circumstance  which  he  regards  as 
evil,  and  who,  refusing  from  motives  of  conscience  or 
perhaps  only  of  prudence,  to  meet  this  evil  with  forcible 
resistance,  refuses  also  to  conform  or  submit  to  it  in 
any  way.  Ignoring  the  bad  law  or  vile  condition  or 
evil  circumstance  as  though  it  did  not  exist  at  all,  this 


THE  MEANING  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      125 

man  goes  on  his  appointed  way  with  unswerving  fidelity, 
and  suffers  without  complaint  or  resistance  any  conse- 
quences, however  terrible,  which  his  conduct  may  bring 
upon  him.  He  resists  not  actively  but  passively  —  not 
violently  but  meekly.  Two  or  three  illustrations,  more 
or  less  familiar,  will  show  what  passive  resistance  means. 
There  has  come  down  to  us,  from  the  very  early  days 
of  Rome,  a  stirring  legend  of  the  capture  and  sack  of 
the  city  by  a  horde  of  Gallic  barbarians,  under  their 
chieftain,  Brennus.  The  Roman  army  had  been  de- 
feated on  the  banks  of  a  river  some  miles  distant,  and 
the  city  thus  exposed  to  the  invader.  As  the  Gauls 
neared  the  gates,  the  inhabitants  fled  in  terror  and  dis- 
may -r-  all  save  certain  aged  men,  members  of  the  Sen- 
ate, who  resolved,  for  the  honour  of  Rome,  to  face 
their  conquerors.  They  had  no  intention  of  fighting, 
for,  with  the  dispersion  of  the  army,  fighting  had  be- 
come useless.  But  they  also  had  no  intention  of  flee- 
ing, and  thus  abandoning  the  city  without  resistance 
to  the  enemy.  Therefore,  with  fine  wisdom  and  superb 
courage,  they  resorted  to  the  policy  of  passive  resist- 
ance. Donning  their  robes  of  office  and  taking  in  their 
hands  their  senatorial  sceptres,  these  old  and  feeble  men 
sat  themselves  down  in  their  thrones  upon  the  Capitoline 
and,  like  so  many  marble  statues,  awaited  the  onslaught 
of  the  foe.  Not  a  finger  did  they  move  —  not  a  word 
did  they  speak  —  and  at  the  same  time  they  offered  no 
obeisance  or  surrender.  They  simply  waited,  in  calm 
repose,  for  whatever  doom  the  savage  Brennus  might 
pronounce  against  them. 


126  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

A  more  striking  illustration,  because  drawn  from  the 
circumstances  and  conditions  of  our  time,  is  that  of  the 
Passive  Resistant  movement  in  England  some  years  ago 
against  the  Tory  Education  Bill.  The  details  of  this 
event  are  intricate  and  need  not  be  set  down  in  this  place. 
Sufficient  is  it  to  say  that,  in  the  ministry  of  Mr.  Bal- 
four,  Parliament  enacted  certain  legislation  in  regard  to 
the  public  school  system  of  the  Kingdom  which  imposed 
taxes  on  Non-Conformists  for  the  support  of  Anglican 
instruction.  There  was  a  great  outcry  in  protest 
against  this  high-handed  piece  of  injustice,  and  in  some 
cases  violent  rebellion,  as  in  the  case  of  Ulster  and  the 
Home  Rule  Bill,  was  insistently  urged.  Wiser  coun- 
sels, fortunately,  prevailed,  and  under  the  lead  of  the 
eminent  Baptist  clergyman,  Dr.  John  Clifford,  a  Pas- 
sive Resistant  movement  of  the  most  formidable  descrip- 
tion was  organised.  Offering  no  forcible  resistance 
whatsoever  to  the  Crown  or  to  the  officers  of  the  Crown, 
Non-Conformists  by  the  thousands,  true  to  their  his- 
toric appellation,  flatly  refused  to  conform.  They  re- 
fused to  send  their  children  to  the  schools  —  and  when 
punished  for  this  offence,  took  their  punishment  with- 
out a  whimper.  They  refused  to  pay  the  rates  —  and 
allowed  their  houses  and  goods  to  be  sold  for  non-pay- 
ment of  taxes  without  raising  a  hand  in  opposition.  In 
more  than  one  instance,  they  were  arrested  and  impris- 
oned, but  in  all  instances  endured  to  the  bitter  end. 
Nothing  could  shake  their  conviction  that  the  Educa- 
tion Bill  was  a  crime ;  nothing  could  persuade  them  to 
resort  to  violence  against  its  enforcement  by  the  au- 


THE  MEANING  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      127 

thorities ;  but  at  the  same  time  nothing  could  swerve 
them  from  their  determination  to  resist  that  enforce- 
ment at  any  cost. 

Another  illustration  of  passive  resistance  is  found  in 
the  life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  After  his  arrest  in  the 
Garden  of  Gethsemane,  Jesus  was  taken  before  the  San- 
hedrin,  and  later,  we  are  told,  before  Pontius  Pilate,  the 
Roman  Procurator.  There  he  was  asked  to  plead  his 
cause,  and,  according  to  one  version  of  the  record  at 
least,  he  refused  to  speak  a  word.  He  had  shown  at 
the  time  of  his  seizure  that  he  would  not  strike  his  as- 
sailants, or  fight  against  them ;  and  now  he  showed  that 
he  would  not  accuse  them  or  even  answer  their  charges. 
But  at  the  same  time  he  would  not  surrender  to  them. 
On  the  contrary,  he  would  resist  them,  passively,  to  the 
very  end ! 

Such  is  the  meaning  of  passive  resistance.  It  is  the 
opposite  of  violence  —  but  at  the  same  time  it  is  the 
opposite  of  n\ere  passivity  or  acquiescence.  The  word 
to  underscore  in  the  phrase  is  not  "  passive  "  but  "  re- 
sistance." Passive  resistance  means  most  emphatically 
resistance  to  evil  —  and  a  most  effective  kind  of  re- 
sistance as  well !  Take  the  old  legend  of  the  Roman 
Senators.  When  the  Gauls  climbed  the  hill  and  looked 
upon  the  aged  men  in  their  curile  chairs,  the  story  runs 
that  they  were  so  surprised  and  over-awed  by  the  noble 
spectacle  that  they  dropped  their  spears  and  shields, 
and  one  after  another  approached,  like  worshippers  to 
a  shrine,  and  stroked  the  snowy  beards  of  the  Senators 
with  reverence.  Had  it  not  been  that  one  of  these  men, 


128  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

less  self-controlled  than  the  rest,  raised  his  sceptre  and 
smote  one  of  the  Gauls  for  his  audacity  in  touching 
him,  their  lives,  and  the  city  itself,  would  have  been 
spared.  The  Passive  Resistant  movement  in  England 
made  the  enforcement  of  the  Education  Bill  impossible, 
and  was  one  of  the  decisive  influences  in  the  downfall  of 
the  Balfour  Cabinet.  And  as  regards  Jesus,  it  may 
be  said  that  it  was  his  attitude  more  than  anything  else 
which  made  Pilate  marvel  and  moved  him  to  declare 
that  he  could  find  no  evil  in  him. 

Passive  resistance  effective?  Think  of  what  would 
have  happened  in  Europe  in  the  summer  of  1914  if  the 
Christians  and  socialists,  who  were  pledged  against  in- 
ternational war,  had  steadfastly  refused  to  take  up 
arms !  There  are  reports  that  some  socialists  in  Ger- 
many and  Austria  were  shot  to  death  because  they  would 
not  answer  the  mobilisation  orders.  A  well-authenti- 
cated story  has  come  to  England  from  Hungary  of 
certain  members  of  the  ancient  sect  of  Nazarenes  — 
non-resistants  like  the  primitive  Christians  —  who  were 
butchered  because  they  would  not  enter  the  army. 
Such  isolated  protests,  however  sublime,  were  of  course 
ineffective.  But  suppose  all  had  been  faithful.  Thou- 
sands would  undoubtedly  have  perished  —  but  the  war 
would  have  been  made  impossible.  Not  violence,  but 
passive  resistance,  is  the  potent  weapon.  Not  to  strike, 
but  to  endure,  is  again  and  again  the  way  to  victory. 

But  passive  resistance  is  not  the  only,  nor  yet  the 
most  effective,  mode  of  legitimate  resistance  to  evil. 
Sometimes,  for  reasons  that  must  be  obvious,  it  is  the 


THE  MEANING  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      129 

only  way;  and  sometimes  also  it  is  the  most  effective. 
But  usually  there  is  open  to  us  that  more  active  and 
aggressive  way,  exemplified  by  all  great  prophets 
and  teachers,  of  resisting  evil  by  a  method  dictated  by 
the  fact  that  the  evil  with  which  we  are  concerned  is  the 
evil  which  may  be  visited  by  one  man  upon  another.  In 
wrestling  with  storm  or  flood,  we  are  dealing  with  phy- 
sical phenomena,  and  have  no  help  but  in  the  wise  utili- 
sation of  physical  energy.  In  battling  against  wild 
animals,  or  even  lunatics,  we  are  engaged  with  crea- 
tures moved  by  physical  instincts,  and  subject  there- 
fore to  no  discipline  save  that  of  physical  force.  With 
man,  however,  this  is  never  the  case.  By  the  very  na- 
ture of  his  being,  man  is  endowed  with  reason,  and  open 
therefore  to  the  appeal  of  thought.  By  the  very  neces- 
sities of  his  bodily  mechanism,  he  is  controlled  by  mo- 
tives, and  therefore  amenable  to  intelligent  suggestion. 
A  man,  just  because  he  is  a  man,  lives  and  moves  and 
has  his  being  on  the  plane  of  the  mind  and  not  of  the 
body,  of  the  spirit  and  not  of  the  flesh  —  and  therefore 
can  be  approached  and  swayed  and  mastered  upon  this 
plane  more  wisely,  and  assuredly  more  worthily,  than 
upon  the  lower  animal  plane.  A  myriad  examples  at- 
test the  power  of  education,  persistently  applied,  over 
all  the  evil  that  can  be  wrought  by  the  devices  of  man's 
heart. 

Take  such  an  episode  of  history,  for  example,  as  that 
of  the  exposure  and  defeat  of  the  fell  conspiracy  of 
Catiline  against  Rome  by  the  intelligence  and  eloquence 
of  Cicero.  The  great  orator,  as  we  know,  was  no  non- 


130  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

resistant,  and  certainly  no  genuine  idealist.  He  would 
have  felt  no  reluctance  about  appealing  to  arms  against 
his  fellow-Senator,  had  he  believed  that  such  an  appeal 
were  wise.  And  had  he  made  the  appeal,  all  the  forces 
of  the  Republic  would  have  been  placed  at  his  entire 
disposal  for  the  defeat  and  capture  of  the  arch-traitor. 
But  all  of  these  customary  weapons  of  defence  Cicero 
cast  resolutely  aside.  Knowing  full  well  the  scope  of 
his  mental  resources  and  especially  the  magic  of  his 
tongue,  he  assailed  Catiline  and  his  followers  not  with 
a  legion  but  with  an  oration.  Four  times  he  rose  in 
his  place  in  the  Senate  Chamber  and  indicted  Catiline 
to  his  face.  Four  times  he  recited  the  case  against  him 
—  four  times  he  challenged  him  for  very  shame  to  seek 
acquittal  or  to  withdraw  from  the  high  office  which  he 
disgraced.  Four  times  he  called  upon  his  fellow-citi- 
zens to  hear  and  note  the  truth.  With  the  result  that 
Catiline  was  hounded  from  the  Senate,  driven  from  the 
city,  and  banished  at  last  in  exile  from  his  country. 
Without  so  much  as  the  drawing  of  a  sword  or  the  lift- 
ing of  a  spear,  solely  by  the  power  of  clear  thought  and 
valiant  speech,  the  most  dangerous  conspiracy  in  Roman 
history  was  frustrated  and  its  leaders  exposed  and  scat- 
tered. 

Another  and  still  more  impressive  illustration  of  the 
power  of  reason  is  that  of  the  Revolution  in  France  in 
1789.  It  is  common  to  think  of  this  stupendous  event 
as  a  hideous  and  yet  triumphant  exemplification  of  the 
virtue  of  force  as  applied  to  certain  political  and  social 
Gordian  knots.  We  recall  the  Bastile,  the  field  of 


THE  MEANING  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      131 

Mars,  the  feast  of  pikes,  the  guillotine  of  Danton,  the 
sword  of  Napoleon  —  and  straightway  declare  that  this 
great  day  of  deliverance  was  a  thing  of  blood  and  iron. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  nothing  could  be  farther 
from  the  truth.  Before  the  sword  was  the  pen.  Be- 
fore Parisian  mobs  and  Napoleonic  guards,  were  books, 
pamphlets,  and  encyclopedias.  Before  Robespierre, 
Danton,  Marat,  Pichegru,  were  Rousseau,  Diderot,  Hoi- 
bach,  D'Alembert,  Voltaire,  and  all  the  rest  of  that 
great  cluster  of  thinkers  whose  rise,  like  that  of  flam- 
ing stars,  proclaimed  the  dawning  of  the  new  day  of 
freedom.  Take  Voltaire  alone !  In  his  biographical 
study  of  this  colossal  genius,  John  Morley  declares  that 
Voltaire's  life  was  so  potent  an  influence  in  the  over- 
throw of  the  vast  structure  of  superstition,  tyranny 
and  misery  which  was  Bourbon  France,  that  his  career 
must  be  told  not  in  terms  of  biography  but  of  history. 
He  is  fairly  to  be  described,  says  Morley,  not  as  a  man 
but  as  an  epoch.  A  little,  shrivelled  dwarf,  feeble  all 
the  time,  sick  most  of  the  time  —  hiding  away  in  dark 
corners  and  out-of-the-way  places  from  the  wrath  of 
kings  and  cardinals  —  journeying  madly  across  fron- 
tiers and  seas  in  flight  from  prison,  torture  and  execu- 
tion —  this  mighty  man  for  a  period  of  full  seventy 
years  wielded  such  a  pen  as  has  never  been  wielded  be- 
fore or  since  by  mortal  man.  Letters,  pamphlets, 
plays,  poems,  novels,  histories,  poured  by  the  thousands 
from  his  asylums  —  all  of  them  arrows  dipped  in  wrath, 
feathered  by  scorn,  and  aimed  straight  as  a  shaft  of 
light  at  the  entrenched  abominations  of  the  times.  The 


132  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

world  is  old,  but  it  has  never  seen  another  such  fighter 
against  evil  as  this  dauntless  Frenchman,  who  could  not 
lift  a  sword,  trembled  at  bloodshed,  and  hated  war  as 
he  hated  hell.  Single-handed,  with  a  pen  dipped  in  ink 
as  his  only  weapon,  Voltaire  offered  resistance  to  the 
worst  abominations  of  the  worst  country  in  the  worst 
century  of  modern  times  —  and  more  than  any  other 
man  or  force,  delivered  the  country,  and  through  it  all 
of  Europe,  from  its  woe.  Pikes  and  swords,  mobs  and 
armies  —  these,  after  all,  were  but  accidents,  frothy 
spume  upon  the  great  currents  of  the  mighty  deep  which 
Voltaire  and  his  associates  had  stirred. 

And  so  we  might  go  through  all  the  history  of  ancient 
and  modern  times,  and  find  the  same  thing  everywhere 
to  be  true.  The  man  whose  life  marks  the  turning 
point  of  history,  was  an  artisan  who  talked  to  people 
like  himself,  and  died  like  a  sheep  going  to  the  slaugh- 
ter. The  men  who  conquered  Rome  and  laid  the  foun- 
dations of  modern  times  were  Christians,  sworn  to  non- 
resistance  and  practising  the  same.  The  men  who 
scattered  the  darkness  of  the  Middle  Ages  and  wrought 
the  wonders  of  the  Renaissance  were  quiet  scholars  in 
cells  of  monasteries  and  halls  of  learning,  like  Erasmus 
and  Thomas  More.  The  man  who  overthrew  Catholi- 
cism in  half  the  Christian  world  and  precipitated  the 
resulting  storm  of  the  Reformation,  was  a  priest  who 
was  sworn  by  his  oath  of  office  not  to  use  the  sword  of 
violence.  The  man  who  delivered  England  in  the  long 
fight  against  the  Cavaliers  was  quite  as  much  Milton, 
with  the  pen  that  wrote  the  Areopagitica,  as  Crom- 


THE  MEANING  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      133 

veil,  with  the  sword  that  won  Naseby  and  Marston 
Moor.  The  speeches  of  Patrick  Henry  and  Samuel 
Adams,  the  pamphlets  of  Thomas  Paine,  and  the  Dec- 
laration of  Thomas  Jefferson,  were  the  determining 
forces  of  the  American  Revolution.  The  great  battle 
for  emancipation  in  this  country  was  won  not  by  men 
who  fought  on  any  field  of  battle  but  by  a  single  non- 
resistant  who  owned  a  printing  press  and  published  a 
newspaper  called  The  Liberator.*  And  the  most  potent 
movement  of  our  time,  socialism,  is  a  movement  which 
has  definitely  banished  the  advocates  of  violence  from 
its  ranks,  and  sought  its  ends  by  education,  organisa- 
tion and  the  ballot.2 

The  whole  history  of  humanity,  from  the  standpoint 
of  progress,  is  the  history  of  the  pen  and  not  the  sword, 
of  the  spoken  word  and  not  the  iron  deed,  of  the 
thinker  and  not  the  soldier.  Say  all  that  can  be  said 
about  weapons  of  violence,  and  you  can  only  declare 
that  they  end  in  the  worst  way  what  thought  has  begun 
in  the  best  way.  "  The  only  things  that  get  done  in 
this  world  are  done  by  words,"  says  the  Captain  in 
Charles  Rann  Kennedy's  The  Terrible  Meek,  in  explana- 
tion of  the  necessity  of  putting  Jesus  to  death  for 
"  sayin'  a  few  words."  Why,  even  in  this  day  of  uni- 
versal violence,  the  supremacy  of  thought  is  still  mani- 
fest. Here  is  Belgium,  for  example,  devastated,  pil- 

1  Lowell  wrote  with  perfect  truth  of  William  Lloyd  Garrison  — 

"  In  a  small  chamber,  friendless  and  unseen, 
Toiled  o'er  his  types  one  poor,  unlearned,  young  man, 
The  place  was  dark,  unfurnitured,  and  mean, 
Yet  there  the  freedom  of  a  race  began." 

2  See  Robert  Hunter's  Violence  and  the  Labor  Movement. 


134  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

laged,  swept  from  end  to  end.  Liege,  Dinant,  Namur, 
are  hopeless  ruins;  Antwerp,  the  mightiest  fortress  in 
Europe,  is  in  the  hands  of  the  enemy ;  her  army  of 
thousands  of  men  is  broken  and  shattered.  Every- 
thing, upon  which  was  placed  reliance  in  the  days  of 
her  pride  and  strength,  is  gone.  Nothing  is  left  — 
save  only  those  things  which  no  might  of  arms  can  ever 
destroy  and  which  are  destined  to  save  her  as  a  people. 
First  among  the  things  of  Belgium  "  that  cannot  be 
shaken  "  is  a  certain  treaty  written  in  the  year  1839. 
Torn  into  shreds  as  a  mere  "  scrap  of  paper  "  by  Von 
Bethmann-Hollweg,  it  is  for  that  very  reason  a  sacred 
thing  which  will  eventually  do  more  for  Belgium's 
security  than  all  her  armies  and  all  her  forts.  A  second 
thing  that  belongs  to  Belgium  to-day,  more  precious 
by  far  than  the  sword  of  Albert,  is  Maeterlinck's  writ- 
ten protest  against  her  violation.  What  the  soldiers 
of  the  king  could  not  do,  the  words  of  the  poet  have 
already  done.  And  still  another  thing  that  stands  like 
a  bulwark  in  Belgium's  defence  —  a  bulwark  which  shall 
stand  when  not  a  stone  is  left  upon  another  in  any  of 
her  fortresses  or  cities  —  is  the  pastoral  letters  of  Car- 
dinal Mercier.  Here  are  instruments  not  only  of 
preservation  but  of  restoration,  which  put  to  scorn 
"  the  armies  of  the  aliens." 

Talk  about  swords,  guns,  forts,  dreadnaughts,  sub- 
marines, Zeppelins !  Nothing  is  so  potent  as  thought. 
A  word  is  irresistible.  An  idea  is  omnipotent. 
Well  has  Bulwer-Lytton  affirmed  that  "  the  pen  is 
mightier  than  the  sword."  Conquerors  rise  and  fall 


THE  MEANING  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      135 

like  the  empires  which  they  build  — "  the  captains  and 
the  kings  depart  "  like  the  vanished  pomp  of  Nineveh 
and  Tyre.  But  the  prophet  lives  and  conquers,  long 
after  his  body  has  been  broken,  burned,  dismembered. 
In  spite  of  its  apparent  "  foolishness,"  preaching 
stands ;  all  the  might  of  a  hundred  kings  and  a  thou- 
sand marching  armies  shall  not  prevail  against  it. 
Swinburne  sums  it  all  up  in  one  stanza  of  flaming 
verse  — 

"  And  shall  ye  rule,  O  kings,  O  strong  men?     Nay! 
Waste  all  ye  will  and  gather  all  ye  may, 
Yet  one  thing  is  there  that  ye  shall  not  stay, — 
Even  Thought,  that  fire  nor  iron  can  affright." 

Not  yet,  however,  have  we  reached  the  end.  One 
thing  more  there  is  that  the  non-resistant  can  do  in 
legitimate  resistance  against  evil  —  and  this  the  wisest, 
noblest  and  most  effective  thing  of  all.  He  can  have 
resort,  or  make  appeal,  to  love,  as  indicated  by  Jesus 
himself  in  his  immortal  proclamation,  "  Love  your  ene- 
mies, bless  them  that  curse  you,  do  good  to  them  that 
hate  you,  and  pray  for  them  that  despitefully  use  you 
and  persecute  you." 

The  evil  which  we  are  discussing,  as  we  have  seen 
again  and  again,  is  the  evil  involved  in  human  relation- 
ships. The  whole  problem  before  us,  in  other  words,  is 
that  of  "  evil  communications  "  between  one  person  and 
another.  The  very  fact,  however,  that  two  persons,  by 
the  mere  doing  of  this  kind  of  evil,  are  brought  in  touch 
with  one  another,  opens  at  once  the  way  of  love.  If 
one  person  hates,  the  other  can  love ;  if  one  person 


136  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

seeks  to  injure,  the  other  can  seek  to  benefit;  if  one  at- 
tempts to  destroy,  the  other  can  attempt  to  save.  A 
lie  can  always  be  met  by  a  truth,  a  curse  with  a  blessing, 
an  evil  with  a  good.  Love  has  its  opportunity  in  any 
relation  between  persons,  whether  that  relation  be 
joined  by  force  of  evil  or  force  of  good.  And  if  it  acts, 
it  "  never  faileth  " !  Thus  it  is  that  the  non-resistant, 
in  the  highest  and  best  sense  of  the  word,  is  not  the  man 
who  endures  passively,  nor  yet  fights  rationally,  but 
the  man  who  loves  profoundly.  The  non-resistant  dis- 
arms his  enemies  by  serving  them,  conquers  them  by 
loving  them,  overcomes  their  evil  by  his  good.  The 
non-resistant  is  pre-eminently  the  lover  and  servant  of 
his  kind  —  and  to  this  extent  and  for  this  reason  the 
one  personage  who  is  supremely  useful.  "  They  are 
lovers  and  benefactors,"  says  Emerson,  in  his  Lecture 
on  War,  "  men  of  love,  honour,  and  truth  —  men  whose 
influence  is  felt  to  the  end  of  the  earth  —  men  whose 
look  and  voice  carry  the  sentence  of  honour  and  good- 
will —  and  all  forces  yield  to  their  energy  and  per- 
suasion." 

The  best  example  which  I  know  of  this  highest  form 
of  positive  non-resistance  is  given  to  us  by  Victor  Hugo, 
in  his  Les  Miserables,  in  the  person  of  the  good  Bishop 
Myriel,  a  man  who  was  not  a  genius  but  simply  loved, 
who  did  not  seek  to  get  gold  out  of  the  earth  but  pity 
out  of  the  hearts  of  men,  who  sought  to  do  good  to  all 
in  return  for  whatever  either  of  good  or  evil  was  done 
to  him.  The  supreme  test  of  his  soul  came,  of  course, 
on  the  night  when  the  convict,  Jean  Valjean,  given  food 


THE  MEANING  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      137 

and  shelter  in  the  Bishop's  home,  fled  with  the  basket 
of  silver  and  was  arrested  by  the  gendarme.  Anger  at 
the  betrayal  of  his  kindness,  the  thought  of  punish- 
ment for  crime,  the  consideration  for  social  welfare  — 
all  these  may  very  well  have  been  present  in  his  mind ; 
but  all  were  forced  to  yield  to  pity  for  frailty,  or  love 
even  for  the  most  ungrateful  of  "  brethren."  Refusing 
to  recognise  the  theft,  he  takes  his  two  silver  candle- 
sticks from  the  shelf  and  gives  them  to  the  frightened 
convict,  and  bids  him  go  and  "  sin  no  more ! " 

Here,  in  such  an  act  as  this,  do  we  have  the  non- 
resistant  spirit  at  its  best.  And  here  also,  by  the  same 
token  as  we  shall  see,  do  we  have  the  non-resistant  spirit 
at  its  highest  point  of  efficiency.  To  forgive,  to  serve, 
to  love  supremely  —  to  meet  injury  with  service  and 
evil  with  good  —  this  is  at  once  to  conquer  every  dif- 
ficulty, stay  every  peril,  and  win  mankind.  See  Jesus 
hanging  on  the  cross,  praying  for  the  forgiveness  of 
those  who  knew  not  what  they  were  doing  in  slaying 
him  —  and  instantly  converting  the  soul  of  the  Roman 
centurion  who  had  crucified  him !  See  Stephen,  yield- 
ing to  those  who  stone  him,  praying  to  God  to  "  lay 
not  this  sin  to  the  charge  "  of  those  who  smote  him  — 
and  at  once  winning  the  allegiance  of  "  the  young  man, 
Saul,"  who  held  the  garments  of  his  executioners !  See 
Garrison  led  through  the  streets  of  Boston  with  a  halter 
about  his  neck,  unresisting,  unreviling  —  and  claiming 
on  the  spot  the  life-long  devotion  to  his  cause  of  Wen- 
dell Phillips !  As  surely  as  violence  makes  enemies,  so 
surely  does  love  make  friends.  Why,  love  can  do  any- 


138  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

thing.  Love  is  the  greatest  thing  in  the  world.  It  cuts 
through  steel  more  quickly  than  any  acid ;  it  conquers 
flesh  more  surely  than  any  sword.  The  only  reason 
why  we  do  not  know  its  potency,  and  believe  in  it,  and 
use  it,  is  that  we  have  never  dared  to  try  it.  We  lack 
the  supreme  courage  of  faith.  But  some  there  are  who 
have  tried  it  —  and  never  vainly.  These  are  they  to 
whom  St.  John  refers  in  his  first  epistle,  when  he  speaks 
of  those  who  "  have  overcome  the  world."  And  it  is 
with  sure  vision  that  he  goes  on  to  explain  their  tri- 
umph by  the  assertion  that  "  these  are  of  God."  "  For 
love  is  of  God,"  he  says,  "  and  every  one  that  loveth  is 
born  of  God  and  knoweth  God  .  .  .  There  is  no  fear 
in  love,  for  perfect  love  casteth  out  fear.  God  is  love ; 
and  he  that  dwelleth  in  love,  dwelleth  in  God  and  God 
in  him." 

IV 

Such  is  the  meaning  of  non-resistance  !  On  the  nega- 
tive side  it  is  the  refusal  to  resist  "  the  evil  that  men 
do  "  with  other  evil.  It  is  the  firm  denial  of  either  the 
efficacy  or  the  right  of  resorting  to  force  for  the  pur- 
pose of  overcoming  force.  It  is,  in  fewest  possible 
words,  the  abandonment  once  for  all  of  physical  force 
as  a  method  of  destroying  evil  and  establishing  good. 

Contrary  to  almost  universal  opinion,  however,  this 
great  refusal  does  not  in  any  sense  of  the  word  imply 
a  weak  and  cowardly  acquiescence  in  evil  and  indiffer- 
ence to  good.  Paradoxical  as  it  may  sound,  and  con- 
trary to  all  apparent  implications  of  the  word,  non- 


THE  MEANING  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      139 

resistance  must  be  understood  as  involving  resistance 
to  falsehood,  dishonour,  greed,  lust,  violence,  hate,  of 
the  most  persistent  and  heroic  type.  The  non-resist- 
ant, if  he  be  a  true  non-resistant,  fights  as  bravely  as 
anybody  for  God's  kingdom.  But  just  because  he  is 
fighting  for  God's  kingdom  he  believes  that  he  must 
fight,  not  as  the  devil  fights,  but  as  God  fights.  He 
thinks  it  vain  to  defeat  the  devil  outwardly  by  surren- 
dering to  him  inwardly.  He  believes  it  futile  to  uproot 
Prussian  militarism  from  the  soil  of  Germany  by  plant- 
ing it  deep  in  the  soil  of  France  and  England.  He  is 
certain  that  God  is  served  by  his  own  spirit  —  and,  un- 
less all  revelation  is  false,  this  spirit  is  the  spirit  of 
love.  From  this  viewpoint,  non-resistance  means  one 
thing,  which  can  be  expressed  very  simply  —  the  lifting 
of  resistance  to  evil  from  the  physical  to  the  moral 
plane! 

Let  it  be  repeated,  therefore,  definitely  and  finally, 
that  non-resistance  is  no  counsel  of  cowardice,  and  the 
non-resistant  no  minion  of  fear.  Non-resistance  is 
moral  militancy,  spiritual  chivalry,  the  knighthood  of 
the  Kingdom.  St.  Paul,  a  true  non-resistant,  described 
true  non-resistance  in  the  great  passage  in  his  letter 
to  the  Ephesians  where  he.  exhorted  his  followers  to 
"  put  on  the  whole  armour  of  God,  that  (they  might) 
be  able  to  stand  against  the  wiles  of  the  devil."  Pic- 
turing the  terrible  evils,  which  must  be  fought  and  de- 
stroyed — **  principalities,  powers,  the  rulers  of  the 
darkness  of  the  world,  spiritual  wickedness  in  high 
places  " —  he  proclaims,  "  Wherefore  take  unto  you  the 


140  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

whole  armour  of  God.  .  .  .  having  your  loins  girt 
about  with  truth,  and  having  on  the  breastplate  of 
righteousness :  and  your  feet  shod  with  the  preparation 
of  the  gospel  of  peace ;  above  all,  taking  the  shield  of 
faith ;  .  .  .  and  take  the  helmet  of  salvation,  and  the 
sword  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the  word  of  God."  Hav- 
ing thus  armed  themselves,  he  promises  his  disciples 
that,  "  strong  in  the  Lord  and  in  the  power  of  his 
might,"  they  shall  "  be  able  to  withstand  in  the  evil 
day,"  and  "  quench  all  the  fiery  darts  of  the  wicked." 


CHAPTER  V 
EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE   (Ancient) 


"With  mercy  and  forbearance  shall  thou  disarm  every  foe. 
For  want  of  fuel  the  fire  expires:  mercy  and  forbearance  bring 
violence  to  naught." —  Buddha. 


CHAPTER  V 

EXEMPLARS    OF    NON-RESISTANCE    (ANCIENT1) 

THERE  can  be  no  better  way  of  illuminating  the  in- 
terpretation of  non-resistance  submitted  in  the  last 
chapter  than  that  of  turning  to  the  vast  treasuries  of 
biography  and  discussing  what  certain  men  have  act- 
ually said  and  done  in  regard  to  this  rule  of  life.  By 
this  method  of  procedure,  furthermore,  we  shall  not  only 
get  a  clearer  definition  of  our  doctrine,  but  we  shall  also 
find  ourselves  strengthened  in  our  faith  by  the  knowledge 
that  some  of  the  noblest  figures  in  the  history  of  hu- 
manity have  been  teachers  and  exemplars  of  the  non-re- 
sistant principle.  For  the  purpose,  therefore,  in  the 
first  place,  of  emphasising  what  we  have  said  about  the 
positive,  aggressive  and  militant  character  of  non-re- 
sistance, and,  in  the  second  place,  of  showing  that,  in 
our  advocacy  of  this  gospel,  we  are  by  no  means  alone, 
but  on  the  contrary  in  the  goodly  company  of  some  of 
the  greatest  heroes  of  ancient  and  modern  times,  we 
shall  proceed  to  call  the  roll  of  some  of  the  more  con- 
spicuous exemplars  of  our  cause.  It  is  obvious  that  our 
list  must  fall  very  far  short  of  being  complete ;  but  it 
will  at  least  be  long  enough,  we  trust,  to  achieve  the 
ends  we  have  in  view. 

i 
First  of  all,  among  the  non-resistants  of  the  ancient 

world,  must  be  cited  the  shadowy  and  yet  strangely  im- 

143 


144  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

pressive  figure  of  Lao-tse,  a  teacher  of  religion  in  China 
before  Confucius.  This  man,  it  may  be  safely  af- 
firmed, is  the  only  real  prophet  of  the  spirit  that  the 
Chinese  people  have  ever  produced,  for  his  more  famous 
and  influential  rival,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  was  not  a  seer 
at  all,  but  only  a  shrewd  expounder  of  a  not  very  exalted 
type  of  expediential  ethics.  Taoism,  the  religious  sys- 
tem of  Lao-tse,  is  the  only  native  religion,  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  word,  which  China  has  ever  known. 

That  Lao-tse  was  a  consummate  genius  is  evident 
from  the  profound  impression  which  he  made  upon  his 
contemporaries  and  transmitted  to  posterity.  Of  the 
details  of  his  life  and  teachings,  however,  we  know  prac- 
tically nothing.  In  both  of  these  respects,  this  Chinese 
sage  reminds  us  irresistibly  of  Heracleitus,  the  famous 
philosopher  of  early  Greece,  whose  outlines  are  hidden 
in  the  impenetrable  mists  of  remote  antiquity.  He  was 
born,  in  all  probability,  somewhere  about  the  year  604 
B.C.  His  father,  strangely  enough,  seems  to  have  been 
an  officer  in  the  king's  army.  We  know  that  during  the 
greater  part  of  his  career  he  was  a  librarian,  or  keeper 
of  the  royal  archives,  in  the  court  of  the  sovereign  of 
Chow.  Beyond  these  very  rudimentary  facts  or  sur- 
mises, we  are  sure  of  nothing. 

One  story,  illuminating  in  its  way,  comes  down 
to  us,  of  a  meeting  between  Lao-tse,  when  he  was  an  old 
man,  and  Confucius,  who  was  at  the  time  apparently  a 
young  man.  According  to  the  record,  Confucius  un- 
dertook a  long  and  painful  journey  for  the  express  pur- 
pose of  meeting  and  conversing  with  the  venerated 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      145 

teacher,  Lao-tse.  Returning  to  his  disciples  after  the 
visitation,  Confucius  described  his  amazement  at  what 
he  had  seen  and  heard  in  the  following  terms :  "  I 
know,"  he  said,  "  how  birds  can  fly,  how  fishes  can  swim, 
and  how  beasts  can  run.  The  runner,  however,  may  be 
snared,  the  swimmer  may  be  hooked,  and  the  flyer  may 
be  shot.  But  there  is  a  dragon  —  I  cannot  tell  how  he 
mounts  on  the  wind  through  the  clouds,  and  rises  to 
heaven.  To-day  I  have  seen  Lao-tse,  and  I  can  only 
compare  him  to  the  dragon." 

This  story  is  almost  certainly  apocryphal  —  a  mere 
legend  of  unhistoric  days.  But  it  shows,  with  perfect 
accuracy,  how  the  spiritual  message  of  Lao-tse  must 
have  impressed  a  teacher  like  Confucius,  who  was  igno- 
rant of  all  the  deeper  mysteries  of  the  spirit,  and  whose 
gospel  never  rose  above  the  shallow  levels  of  a  kind  of 
dry,  uninspired,  more  or  less  platitudinous  philosophy 
of  common-sense  practicality.  It  was  quite  impossible 
that  these  two  alien  souls  should  have  any  under- 
standing of  one  another.  To  Confucius,  the  great  Lao- 
tse,  with  his  lofty  vision  of  the  universal  and  eternal, 
must  indeed  have  appeared  like  the  dragon  who  mounted 
by  unknown  paths  to  heaven  and  could  not  be  snared  by 
the  devices  of  men. 

Turning  from  the  life  of  Lao-tse  to  his  teachings, 
we  find  at  once  the  certain  fact  that  here  was  a  noble 
and  consistent  exemplar  of  non-resistance.  So  frag- 
mentary are  the  sayings  which  are  left  to  us,  that  it  is 
almost  impossible  to  ascertain  from  just  what  point  of 
view  he  came  to  the  acceptance  and  inculcation  of  this 


146  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

idealistic  doctrine.  What  seem  to  have  been  the  work- 
ings of  his  mind  can  best  be  suggested,  perhaps,  by  a 
reference  to  a  familiar  piece  of  English  literature,  which 
seems  to  reflect  in  our  modern  language,  in  the  strangest 
way  in  the  world,  the  hidden  thought  of  this  ancient 
seer.  I  refer  to  Matthew  Arnold's  poem,  entitled  Self- 
Dependence,  wherein  he  pictures  himself  as  standing  at 
the  prow  of  a  great  ship,  which  is  sailing  across  the  vast 
reaches  of  the  sea. 

"  Weary  of  myself,  and  sick  of  asking 
What  I  am  or  what  I  ought  to  be," 

he  ponders  upon  the  restlessness  of  human  action,  and 
the  strange  unsatisfied  yearnings  of  human  thought. 
And  as  he  tries  to  still  the  perturbations  of  his  own 
spirit,  he  becomes  impressed  with  the  great  repose  of  the 
surrounding  universe.  He  listens  to  the  steady  wash- 
ing of  the  waves  against  the  vessel  —  he  looks  upon  the 
quiet  shining  of  the  stars  in  heaven  —  he  feels  the  soft 
blowing  of  the  gale  against  his  cheek.  And  out  of  the 
great  spaces  of  the  night  there  comes  to  his  troubled 
spirit  the  suggestion  as  to  how  the  heart  of  man  can 
find  content  and  peace.  Speaking  of  the  things  of  na- 
ture, the  poet  says : 

"  Unaff righted  by  the  silence  round  them, 
Undistracted  by  the  sights  they  see, 
These  demand  not  that  the  things  without  them 
Yield  them  love,  amusement,  sympathy. 

"And  with  joy  the  stars  perform  their  shining, 
And  the  sea  its  long  moon-silvered  roll, 
For  self-poised  they  live,  nor  pine  with  noting 
All  the  fever  of  some  differing  soul. 


EXEMPLARS  OF  1VON-RESISTANCE      147 

"  Bounded  by  themselves  and  unregardful 
In  what  state  God's  other  works  may  be, 
In  their  own  tasks  all  their  powers  outpouring, 
These  attain  the  mighty  life  you  see." 

Strangely  enough,  it  is  this  high  thought  of  the  Eng- 
lish apostle  of  culture  of  the  last  century,  which  seems 
best  to  interpret  the  philosophy  of  the  Chinese  seer  who 
lived  some  six  hundred  years  before  the  birth  of  Jesus. 
Lao-tse,  so  far  as  we  can  judge  from  the  few  sayings 
which  have  been  preserved  to  us  from  his  writings,  seems 
always  to  have  been  primarily  impressed  by  the  unvary- 
ing processes  of  the  natural  world  —  the  forces  of  na- 
ture and  the  laws  which  controlled  these  forces.  Every 
day  he  watched  the  sun  rise  in  the  morning  and  go  to  its 
setting  in  the  evening  without  haste  or  confusion. 
Every  night  he  beheld  the  stars  march  reposefully  across 
the  heavens,  and  look  down,  as  if  in  pity,  upon  the 
fevered  ways  of  men.  He  saw  great  rivers  coursing  to 
the  sea,  and  the  sea  itself  rising  and  falling  in  rhythmic 
beat  upon  the  shore.  Nowhere  was  there  fret  or  fury, 
confusion  or  waste  or  chance.  Nature  apparently  did 
all  that  she  wanted  to  do,  and  received  all  that  she 
wanted  to  receive,  without  clamour,  excitement,  violence, 
or  death.  And  contemplating  these  phenomena  as  the 
English  poet  contemplated  them,  Lao-tse  spoke  to  men, 
as  the  English  poet  spoke  in  his  verses,  urging  upon 
their  attention  and  imitation  the  example  of  the  natural 
world.  From  some  such  experience  and  reflection,  we 
may  be  reasonably  sure,  the  great  sage  came  to  his 
message  of  gentleness  and  repose,  which  stands  out  in 


148  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

our  late  day  as  the  one  unmistakable  feature  of  his 
gospel.  He  exhorted  men  to  be  quiet,  kindly,  sympa- 
thetic ;  he  instructed  them  not  to  fret  or  struggle,  not  to 
"  strive  nor  cry  " ;  he  warned  them  against  endeavours  to 
outmatch  their  neighbours  in  strength  or  cunning,  or  to 
rival  others  in  powers  or  possessions.  And  then  he 
went  on  to  emphasise  the  majesty  of  repose,  the  valour 
of  gentleness,  and  the  unconquerable  power  of  humility. 
"  Of  all  the  weak  things  in  the  world,"  he  said,  "  nothing 
exceeds  water ;  and  yet  of  those  which  attack  hard  and 
strong  things,  I  know  not  what  is  superior  to  it."  And 
the  same  fact,  he  went  on,  is  true  of  men.  "  The  weak," 
was  his  declaration,  "  can  conquer  the  strong,  and  the 
tender  the  hard.  Therefore  the  superior  man,  con- 
scious of  being  strong,  is  content  to  be  weak." 

Here,  in  this  exposition  of  the  power  of  the  gentle  life, 
is  the  unmistakable  note  of  non-resistance.  But  Lao-tse 
did  not  stay  his  flight  at  this  point ;  he  rose  at  once,  like 
Confucius's  dragon,  "  on  the  winds  "  of  faith  "  through 
the  clouds  "  of  doubt,  to  the  "  heaven  "  of  perfect  vision. 
Impressive  is  it  to  note,  six  centuries  before  the  advent 
of  Jesus,  the  appearance  of  a  teacher  who  imparted  to 
his  disciples  exactly  those  principles  of  moral  recom- 
pense which  glorify  the  gospel  of  the  Nazarene.  "  To 
those  who  are  good,"  he  said,  "  I  am  good ;  and  to  those 
who  are  not  good,  I  am  also  good  —  and  thus  all  get  to 
be  good.  To  those  who  are  sincere  I  am  sincere ;  and  to 
those  who  are  not  sincere,  I  am  also  sincere  —  and  thus 
all  get  to  be  sincere.  To  recompense  injury  with  kind- 
ness, this  is  the  law  of  life."  Confucius,  it  will  be  re- 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      149 

membered,  never  accepted  this  principle.  On  the  con- 
trary, he  laughed  it  to  scorn.  Thus  when  one  of  his 
disciples  pointed  out  to  him  that  Lao-tse  had  taught  the 
doctrine  of  returning  good  for  evil,  Confucius  replied, 
undoubtedly  with  that  tone  of  positive  assurance  that 
always  characterises  the  practical  man  —  Not  at  all; 
you  should  not  recompense  injury  with  kindness,  for  if 
you  do  that,  what  are  you  going  to  give  the  kind  man? 
"  Give  to  the  kind  man  kindness,  but  to  the  unkind  man, 
give  nothing  more  than  justice." 

Preaching  thus  the  thorough-going  gospel  of  good- 
will, it  is  not  surprising  to  learn  that  Lao-tse  translated 
his  theories  into  definite  social  policies  which  were  unique 
in  his  day  and  still  remain  unfulfilled  in  ours.  Thus 
this  forerunner  of  spiritual  idealism  denounced  the 
practice  of  capital  punishment,  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  a  violation  of  the  law  of  love.  More  remarkable 
still,  he  inveighed  against  the  barbarous  punishments 
for  crime  which,  then  as  now,  were  ruthlessly  ad- 
ministered in  Chinese  prisons.  Most  remarkable  of  all, 
in  an  age  of  almost  universal  ignorance  and  barbarism, 
he  declared  against  war.  I  cannot  find  that  he  ever 
laid  down  any  absolute  dictum  against  war.  But  he  de- 
nounced it  freely  as  the  consummation  of  all  evil,  as- 
serted that  it  should  never  be  practised  except  under  the 
most  extreme  circumstances,  and  said  that  "  he  is  the 
wise  king  who  keeps  his  people  in  the  paths  of  peace,  and 
he  an  unwise  and  foolish  king  who  leads  them  into  the 
paths  of  strife." 

Here,  certainly,  is  a  non-resistant !     Whether  there 


150  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

is  any  connection  between  the  teachings  of  this  prophet 
and  the  traditional  practices  of  the  Chinese  people  it  is 
difficult  to  say.  The  books  of  Confucius  have  had  an 
immensely  wider  and  deeper  influence  than  those  of  Lao- 
tse  ;  and  the  modern  religion  of  Taoism  has  little  of  the 
gospel  of  its  reputed  founder  left  in  it.  But  certainly 
it  does  not  seem  altogether  rash  to  venture  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  pacific  temper  of  Chinese  life  is  to  some 
degree  a  result  of  Lao-tse's  philosophy,  or  at  least  that 
both  have  their  origin  in  some  more  ancient  influence  not 
yet  disclosed  to  human  knowledge. 

ii 

The  second  exemplar  of  non-resistance  is  Buddha, 
the  founder  of  the  greatest  and  most  beneficent  of  the 
world's  religions,  with  .the  single  exception  of  Christi- 
anity. There  is  no  need  in  this  place  to  tell  at  any 
length  the  familiar  story  of  the  life  of  this  great  teacher. 
His  birth  in  the  palace  of  his  father,  the  prince  and 
soldier  —  the  careful  shelter  of  his  early  years  from  all 
knowledge  of  pain  and  misery  —  his  marriage  to  the 
beautiful  princess,  Yasodhara  —  the  birth  of  his  only 
child,  a  son  —  his  discovery  first  of  pain,  then 
of  disease,  and  last  of  death  —  his  determination, 
under  the  impact  of  this  revelation,  to  devote  himself 
to  the  alleviation  of  human  ill,  and  his  consequent 
abandonment  of  his  family,  home  and  political  responsi- 
bilities —  his  years  of  wandering,  as  a  poor  mendicant, 
in  search  of  the  way  of  salvation  —  the  moment  of  su- 
preme revelation  beneath  the  Bodhi  tree  —  the  preach- 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      151 

ing  of  the  sermon  at  Benares,  which  corresponds  in  the 
history  of  Buddhism  to  Jesus's  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
—  the  gathering  of  his  disciples  and  organisation  of  his 
sacred  order  —  the  long  years  of  his  teaching,  the  wide 
spread  of  his  influence,  his  old  age,  his  death  —  these 
facts  are  familiar  as  constituting  one  of  the  most 
romantic  stories  in  history.  Sufficient  is  it  for  our 
purposes  to  point  out  that  throughout  all  the  period 
of  his  long  life,  from  the  time  he  left  his  father's  court 
to  the  time  he  expired  in  the  arms  of  his  disciples,  he  ex- 
emplified with  unvarying  uniformity  the  precepts  of 
non-resistance. 

More  important  for  us  than  the  story  of  his  career, 
is  the  question  as  to  the  line  of  thought  which  led  this 
great  prophet  to  the  acceptance  and  practice  of  the 
non-resistant  principle.  And  fortunately,  in  this  case, 
as  not  in  the  case  of  Lao-tse,  we  are  left  in  no  manner  of 
doubt  as  to  the  answer  to  this  inquiry.  The  record  of 
Buddha's  thought  is  full  and  clear. 

At  the  bottom,  of  course,  of  all  his  teaching,  is  the 
recognition  of  the  fact  of  suffering.  Buddha  saw  suf- 
fering everywhere.  "  Birth,"  he  said,  "  is  suffering,  age 
is  suffering,  illness  is  suffering,  death  is  suffering,  con- 
tact with  what  we  dislike  is  suffering,  separation  from 
what  we  like  is  suffering,  failure  to  attain  what  we  crave 
is  suffering  ...  in  brief,  all  that  makes  bodily  ex- 
istence is  suffering."  Buddhism,  after  all,  has  its  origin 
in  what  must  be  described,  with  however  much  reluc- 
tance, the  blackest  kind  of  pessimism  to  the  very  end. 

Now  as  it  was  this  recognition  of  suffering  which 


152  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

awakened  Buddha  to  his  sense  of  a  mission  to  mankind, 
so  it  was  an  endeavour  to  discover  the  cause  of  suffer- 
ing and  the  cure  of  suffering  which  engaged  all  his 
thought  as  a  religious  teacher.  And  very  early  in  his 
search  for  the  way  of  salvation,  he  came  face  to  face 
with  the  great  fact  of  violence.  A  large  part  of  the 
suffering  in  the  world  was  undoubtedly  the  direct  result 
of  the  violent  practices  visited  by  men  upon  their  fel- 
lows. Greed,  selfishness,  fear,  lust,  hate,  all  these  were 
constantly  finding  expression  in  action  based  upon  phys- 
ical force.  Nay,  more  than  this,  virtuous  motives  were 
dictating  the  use  of  force  quite  as  frequently  as  evil 
passions,  with  the  same  results  of  pain  and  woe.  If  suf- 
fering ever  is  to  be  conquered,  violence,  for  whatever 
purpose  used,  must  be  abolished.  Therefore,  with  al- 
most unexampled  thoroughness,  did  Buddha  denounce 
the  use  of  force,  and  seek  to  eliminate  it  from  human 
life.  Violence,  he  declared,  can  accomplish  nothing  but 
suffering.  It  can  only  pile  up  evil  upon  the  earth  con- 
tinually. The  man  who  resorts  to  its  use,  for  however 
worthy  an  end,  is  only  defeating  his  end  and  at  the 
same  time  adding  to  the  accumulated  miseries  of  the 
race. 

But  Buddha  did  not  stop  with  the  proclamation  of 
this  negative  gospel.  On  the  contrary,  he  advanced  at 
once  the  positive  message  of  gentleness,  kindness,  and 
compassion.  These  are  the  things,  he  said,  that  bring 
balm  to  the  wounds  of  men,  and  surcease  therefore  to 
their  suffering.  These  are  the  things  which,  while  they 
add  nothing  to  the  evil  of  the  world,  add  immeasurably 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      153 

to  its  good.  And  then,  moving  straight  along  the  path 
way  trod  by  Lao-tse  and  later  followed  by  Jesus,  he 
came  to  the  great  goal  of  forgiving  love.  Startling  is  it 
to  find  these  three  great  teachers,  separated  from  one 
another  by  thousands  of  miles  of  space  and  hundreds  of 
years  of  time,  rising  to  the  same  great  heights  of  vision 
and  formulating  the  same  great  law  of  life.  "  Recom- 
pense injury  with  kindness,"  said  Lao-tse;  "love  your 
enemies,"  said  Jesus ;  and  now  comes  Buddha  with  the 
words,  "  The  man  who  foolishly  does  me  wrong,  I  will 
return  to  him  the  protection  of  my  ungrudging  love ; 
the  more  evil  comes  from  him,  the  more  good  shall  go 
from  me.  .  .  .  Let  a  man  overcome  anger  by  love,  let 
a  man  overcome  evil  by  good,1  let  him  overcome  the 
greedy  by  liberality  and  the  liar  by  truth." 

As  we  study  the  religion  of  Buddha,  it  is  interesting 
to  note,  that,  unlike  the  religion  of  Lao-tse,  it  has  no 
social  applications  whatsoever.  Throughout  his  life, 
Buddha  was  a  teacher  of  the  individual,  and  the  way  of 
salvation  which  he  laid  down  was  a  way  for  the  indi- 
vidual. Therefore  do  we  look  in  vain  among  his  sayings 
for  any  application  of  his  gospel  to  poverty,  war,  the 
treatment  of  prisoners,  etc.  One  statement  only,  apart 
from  his  general  formulations  of  the  laws  of  gentleness 
and  sympathy,  can  here  be  quoted  —  and  this  not  so 

i " Overcome  evil  with  good" — St.   Paul,  in  Romans   12.    See 
Edwin  Arnold's  rewriting  of  this  saying  in  his  Light  of  Asia  — 
"  Also  I  think  that  good  must  come  of  good 
And  ill  of  evil  —  surely  unto  all  — 
In  every  place  and  time  —  seeing  sweet  fruit 
Groweth  from  wholesome  roots,  and  hitter  things 
From  poison-stocks;  yea,  seeing  too,  how  spite 
Breeds  hate,  and  kindness  friends,  and  patience  peace." 


154  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

much  because  it  has  any  reference  to  our  present  dis- 
cussion as  because  of  its  amazing  anticipation  of  a  point 
which  we  amplified  at  considerable  length  in  our  chapter 
on  "  The  Fallacies  of  Force." 

It  will  be  remembered  that  in  our  consideration  of 
Bernhardi's  reliance  upon  biological  phenomena  for  the 
substantiation  of  his  doctrine  of  force,  we  showed  that 
the  combative  monsters,  who  fought  and  tore  one  an- 
other in  the  primeval  "  ooze  and  slime,"  were  the  very 
animals  which  had  disappeared  in  the  course  of  ages  of 
evolution,  and  that  the  weak,  gentle,  gregarious  crea- 
tures were  the  ones  which  had  withstood  the  crucial  test 
of  survival.  Now  here  in  the  case  of  Buddha,  who  lived 
some  two  thousand  five  hundred  years  before  Charles 
Darwin  and  the  modern  school  of  evolutionists,  do  we 
find  the  following  saying  — "  Three  cubs  the  lioness 
brings  forth,  four  the  tigress,  but  one  the  cow,  yet  many 
are  the  meek  cattle,  few  the  beasts  of  prey.  The  fierce 
and  grasping  soon  decay ;  the  universe  preserves  to  the 
peaceful  the  heritage  of  the  earth."  a  It  seems  almost 
incredible  that  Buddha  could  have  observed  and  formu- 
lated this  biological  law;  and  yet  this  statement  is  as 
well-accredited  as  any  which  is  reputed  to  have  come 
from  his  lips.  Here,  six  hundred  years  before  Christ,  is 
the  summing  up  of  the  whole  gospel  of  evolution  in  its 
bearing  upon  the  principle  of  non-resistance.  Buddha, 
like  Lao-tse  before  him  and  Jesus  after  him,  saw  clearly 
that  it  is  the  weak  who  conquer  the  strong  in  the  long 

i  "  Blessed  are  the  meek  for  they  shall  inherit  the  earth " — 
Jesus,  in  Matthew  5. 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      155 

run,  and  that  as  a  consequence  the  way  of  love  is  the 
way  of  life.  Verily,  verily,  General  Bernhardi  and  his 
school  are  farther  behind  the  times  than  we  had  sup- 
posed ! 

m 

The  third  exemplar  of  non-resistance,  whom  I  shall 
name,  brings  us  to  the  familiar  ground  of  Jewish  history 
and  the  familiar  record  of  the  Old  Testament.  I  refer 
to  Isaiah,  commonly  regarded  as  the  greatest  in  the  long 
line  of  the  prophets  of  ancient  Israel. 

In  order  to  understand  the  teachings  of  this  man,  it  is 
necessary  to  remember  that,  unlike  Lao-tse  and  Buddhr, 
and  unlike  also  most  of  his  predecessors  and  successors 
in  the  prophetic  line,  Isaiah  was  not  primarily  a  re- 
ligious teacher  at  all,  but  a  politician  or  rather  states- 
man. He  was  not  a  cloistered  student,  not  a  wander- 
ing mendicant,  not  a  priest,  not  even  a  man  of  the  peo- 
ple, but  all  his  life  an  aristocrat,  a  courtier,  a  friend  of 
kings  and  a  counsellor  in  the  ministries  of  state.  It  is 
for  this  reason  that  his  recorded  writings  have  so  ex- 
clusively to  do,  not  with  the  ethical  problems  of  indi- 
vidual life,  but  with  the  political  problems  of  Israel, 
and  the  vast  issues  of  international  relationships.  And 
it  is  for  this  reason  also  that  his  attitude  as  a  non-re- 
sistant has  a  greater  interest  for  us  than  that  of  Lao-tse 
or  Buddha,  or  perhaps  even  of  Jesus.  For  there  are 
many  of  us  who  are  pretty  much  convinced  of  the  inef- 
ficacy  of  force  and  the  efficacy  of  goodwill  in  the  quiet 
and  sheltered  ways  of  individual  existence,  but  are  ex- 


156  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

ceedingly  dubious  about  these  principles  when  they 
come  to  be  extended  to  the  larger,  more  intricate  and 
therefore  more  perilous  problems  of  the  nation  and  of 
society  at  large.  In  Isaiah  we  have  a  supremely  able, 
courageous  and  spiritually-minded  man  who  made  just 
this  doubtful  extension  of  the  non-resistant  gospel  to 
the  affairs  of  state  —  and  therefore  an  immensely  sig- 
nificant example  of  the  meaning  and  practicability  of 
our  doctrine. 

There  were  two  episodes  in  the  long  career  of  Isaiah 
as  a  statesman  and  prophet  which  put  his  non-resistant 
principles  to  the  test.  They  may  be  cited  as  all-suf- 
ficient illustrations  of  his  thought  and  conduct. 

The  first  episode  occurred  in  the  year  734  B.C.  It 
was  in  anticipation  of  that  invasion  from  the  east  which 
resulted  only  a  few  years  later  in  the  fall  of  Samaria 
and  the  conquest  of  the  Northern  Kingdom,  that  Pekah, 
the  king  of  Israel,  and  Rezin,  the  king  of  Syria,  under- 
took to  persuade  Ahaz,  king  of  Judah,  to  join  with  them 
in  a  coalition  against  the  Assyrians,  believing  that  the 
time  had  at  last  come  when  together  they  could  over- 
throw the  Chaldean  hosts  and  thus  protect  their  lands 
from  destruction.  Now  the  motive  behind  this  pro- 
posal seemed  worthy,  and  its  occasion  propitious  ;  there- 
fore was  Ahaz  tempted  to  clasp  hands  with  his  royal 
contemporaries  and  join  in  their  hostile  enterprise. 
When  he  looked  far  to  the  east,  however,  and  saw  in  all 
its  splendour  and  might,  the  stupendous  military  power 
of  Assyria,  he  became  frightened  and  hesitant.  Thus 
did  he  blow  now  hot,  now  cold,  eager  to  smite  his  enemy, 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      157 

longing  for  the  booty  of  a  successful  war ;  but,  a  coward 
at  heart,  never  quite  daring  to  take  the  final  step.  At 
last,  after  long  waiting,  Pekah  and  Rezin,  both  of  them 
men  of  some  boldness,  grew  angry  as  well  as  impatient, 
and  decided  to  force  Ahaz  to  join  them.  Therefore  did 
they  turn  their  armies  south  into  Judah  instead  of  east 
into  Assyria,  and  marched  upon  Jerusalem. 

Terror-stricken  at  this  sudden  and  unexpected  turn 
of  affairs,  the  wretched  Ahaz  was  about  to  appeal  to 
Assyria,  of  all  countries,  for  help,  when,  at  the  supreme 
crisis  in  the  nation's  affairs,  Isaiah  came  upon  the  scene. 
His  advice  was  at  once  comforting  and  terrifying.  You 
are  perfectly  right,  he  said,  to  hesitate  about  joining 
in  any  desperate  coalition  against  Assyria.  The  three 
nations,  Israel,  Judah,  and  Syria,  can  never  hope  to  se- 
cure any  permanent  advantage  over  this  mighty  power 
to  the  East ;  an  attack  can  only  lead  to  utter  destruc- 
tion in  the  end.  But  you  are  all  wrong  in  seeking  now 
to  form  an  alliance  with  Assyria,  in  order  to  ward  off 
the  invasion  of  Pekah  and  Rczin.  Assyria  may  promise 
protection,  but  she  will  not  give  it ;  and  any  alliance  of 
any  kind  means  the  ultimate  merging  of  your  kingdom 
into  the  Assyrian  empire.  The  thing  for  you  to  do,  ho 
continued  —  and  here  is  the  greatness  of  his  message ! 
—  is  to  stand  aloof  from  all  alliances  and  coalitions, 
and  steadfastly  refuse  to  make  war.  Even  now,  when 
your  foes  are  advancing  against  you,  it  is  the  part  of 
wisdom  for  you  to  sheath  your  sword  and  place  your 
confidence  in  Jehovah.  God  is  our  Gcd,  who  will  safe- 
guard his  people  who  put  their  trust  in  him ! 


158  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  a  coward  like  Ahaz  had  jio 
confidence  in  such  desperate  counsel  as  this.  Surely 
hope  is  far  gone  when  one  has  no  other  reliance  but 
God!  Therefore  did  the  king  cast  his  fate  into  the 
hands  of  Assyria  —  and  the  inevitable  straightway  came 
to  pass.  Marching  west  with  his  swarming  legions 
Tiglath-Pileser,  the  Assyrian  despot,  overthrew  the 
armies  of  Syria  and  Israel,  captured  the  capital  cities, 
Damascus  and  Samaria,  ravaged  the  prostrate  countries 
from  end  to  end,  and  carried  the  population  off  into 
captivity.  Then,  distrusting  Ahaz  and  contemptuous 
of  his  friendship,  he  invaded  the  land  of  his  ally  exactly 
as  he  had  invaded  the  lands  of  his  enemies,  and  was  only 
turned  aside  by  a  surrender  on  the  part  of  Ahaz  which 
was  equal  in  humiliation  if  not  in  terror  to  that  of 
Pekah  and  Rezin.  Only  when  the  temple  of  Jehovah 
had  been  stripped  of  its  gold  and  silver,  the  daughters 
of  Ahaz  passed  over  to  the  pleasures  of  the  great  king, 
and  hundreds  of  captives  of  high  degree  committed  to 
his  hands  as  hostages,  did  Tiglath-Pileser  consent  to 
spare  Judah  and  return  to  his  own  dominions.  The 
kingdom  was  saved,  but  at  what  a  loss  of  wealth,  happi- 
ness, and  honour ! 

Anticipating  exactly  such  an  outcome  as  this,  Isaiah, 
upon  hearing  of  Ahaz's  alliance  with  Assyria,  had 
erected  in  one  of  the  public  squares  of  Jerusalem,  a 
great  sign  bearing  the  inscription,  "  Swift  spoil,  speedy 
prey."  The  prophecy  was  clear  —  that  he  who  lifted 
the  sword  would  always  become  the  "  swift  spoil  "  and 
"  speedy  prey  "  either  of  his  enemy  or  of  his  friend. 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      159 

And  the  prophecy  was  fulfilled.  Ahaz  escaped  Pekah 
and  Rezin,  only  to  fall  into  the  clutches  of  Tiglath ! 
The  second  episode,  to  which  I  have  referred,  took 
place  twelve  years  later,  in  the  year  722  B.  c.  Sargon, 
the  successor  of  Tiglath-Pileser  on  the  throne  of  As- 
syria, had  been  assassinated,  and  the  great  soldier,  Sen- 
nacherib, had  taken  his  place.  Revolution  broke  out  in 
the  West  immediately  on  the  death  of  Sargon,  and 
among  those  who  took  advantage  of  this  opportunity 
for  independence  was  Hezekiah,  the  king  of  Israel. 
Sennacherib's  first  move  was  to  put  down  the  rebellion 
in  his  own  kingdom.  This  done,  he  marched  straight 
to  the  West  and  invaded  Egypt,  with  the  Pharaoh  of 
which  Hezekiah  had  joined  alliance.  The  land  of  the 
pyramids  was  soon  conquered,  and  then  came  the  turn 
of  Israel.  Advancing  rapidly  eastward,  the  great  king 
ravaged  and  burned  and  slaughtered  on  every  side,  and 
at  last,  breathing  frightful  vengeance,  marshalled  his 
host  about  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  and  besieged  the  city. 
It  was  at  this  moment,  when  the  most  formidable  of 
armies,  under  one  of  the  greatest  of  soldiers,  was  as- 
saulting the  citadel,  that  Isaiah  came  to  Hezekiah  and 
spoke  that  message  which  stands,  and  must  stand  for- 
ever, I  believe,  as  one  of  the  most  remarkable  utterances 
of  all  time.  "  Woe,"  he  said,  "  to  the  rebellious  chil- 
dren that  go  down  into  Egypt  for  help,  and  trust  in 
chariots  because  they  are  many,  and  in  horsemen  be- 
cause they  are  strong ;  but  unto  the  Holy  One  of  Israel 
they  look  not,  neither  seek  the  Lord!  .  .  .  Now  the 
Egyptians  are  men,  and  not  God,  and  their  horses  are 


160  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

flesh,  and  not  spirit ;  wherefore  both  he  that  helpeth 
shall  stumble,  and  he  that  is  helped  shall  fall.  .  .  .  As 
birds  flying,  so  will  the  Lord  of  Hosts  defend  Jerusa- 
lem ;  defending  also  he  will  deliver  it,  and  passing  over 
he  will  preserve  it.  Turn  ye  unto  him,  from  whom  the 
children  of  Israel  have  deeply  revolted." 

Then  followed  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  acci- 
dents of  history.  Isaiah  had  told  the  king  that,  if  he 
defended  the  city,  it  would  be  destroyed ;  but  that  if  he 
trusted  to  God  alone,  it  would  be  saved.  The  idea 
seemed  preposterous ;  but  Hezekiah,  in  the  desperate- 
ness  of  the  situation,  knew  nothing  else  to  do  but  look 
to  the  Lord.  And  lo,  in  a  single  night,  the  vast  army 
which  was  besetting  Jerusalem  on  every  side,  suddenly 
broke  camp,  returned  to  the  east,  and  never  again  in- 
vaded Israel.  What  took  place,  no  historian  is  able 
definitely  to  say.  Some  surmise  that  a  revolt  had  taken 
place  in  Assyria  —  others,  that  news  of  an  invasion 
from  some  unexpected  source  was  received  —  still 
others,  that  pestilence  had  broken  out  in  the  camp  and 
was  decimating  the  troops.  The  last  is  probably  the 
most  likely  supposition.  But  whatever  the  cause,  the 
fact  still  remains  that  the  siege  was  lifted  and  the  city 
saved.  And  from  that  day  forward,  it  may  be  added, 
Isaiah  was  a  man  of  unquestioned  authority  in  the 
political  affairs  of  the  kingdom. 

Here,  now,  in  these  two  striking  episodes,  do  we  have 
impressive  evidence  of  the  thoroughness  and  courage  of 
Isaiah's  policy  of  non-resistance.  To  many  historians, 
the  prophet's  attitude  on  both  of  these  occasions  has 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      161 

seemed  to  be  the  very  acme  of  unreason  and  immorality. 
Some  have  even  gone  so  far  as  to  suggest  in  Isaiah's 
case,  as  later  in  Jeremiah's,  the  charge  of  treason. 
Thus  Ernest  Renan,  discussing  these  events  in  his  His- 
tory of  the  People  of  Israel,  asked  if  "  one  does  not  seem 
to  be  reading  the  words  of  a  rabid  socialist  of  our  own 
day,  declaiming  against  the  army,  making  mock  of  pa- 
triotism, and  predicting  with  a  kind  of  savage  joy  fu- 
ture disaster? "  From  the  standpoint  of  the  tradi- 
tional and  still  universally  accepted  ideas  of  statecraft 
and  patriotism,  Renan  is  undoubtedly  correct  in  this  in- 
dictment ;  and  those  who  read  the  words  of  Isaiah  as  in- 
spired utterances  and  clamour  for  armies  and  navies, 
foreign  coalitions,  and  wars  on  every  provocation,  may 
well  take  note  of  his  fearless  criticism.  But  some  of 
us  may  be  pardoned,  perhaps,  if  we  believe  that  Isaiah, 
whether  justified  by  events  or  not,  was  right  in  his 
counsel  of  perfection,  and  seek  for  some  statesman- 
prophet  of  our  own  time  to  "  profit  by  his  example." 
Isaiah,  in  a  position  of  great  responsibility,  anticipated 
Jesus  in  asserting  that  "  they  that  take  the  sword 
shall  perish  with  the  sword,"  and  is  still  unmatched  by 
any  public  leader  in  his  trust  in  God  and  the  things 
of  righteousness. 

IV 

Our  last  example  of  non-resistance  in  the  ancient 
world  must  be  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  At  first  sight  it 
might  seem  as  though  we  needed  to  spend  very  little  time 
in  explaining  the  attitude  of  the  Carpenter  upon  this 


162  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

question,  for  the  evidence  is  familiar  and  would  seem  to 
be  unimpeachable.  We  shall  deceive  ourselves,  how- 
ever, if  we  lightly  assume  that  the  founder  of  Christi- 
anity is  everywhere  accepted  as  a  non-resistant,  and 
that  we  can  use  the  authority  of  his  name  without  sub- 
stantiating our  interpretation  of  his  gospel.  Nothing 
has  been  more  marked,  for  example,  since  the  outbreak 
of  the  Great  War  in  Europe,  than  the  endeavour  of 
those  who  believe  in  war,  or  at  least  in  this  particular 
war,  to  prove  that  Jesus  was  not  a  non-resistant,  and 
that  the  Christians  of  Germany,  England,  and  France 
were  under  no  spiritual  obligation,  therefore,  to  refrain 
from  taking  up  arms  against  their  enemies.  Strange 
as  it  may  seem  to  those  of  us  who  have  always  accepted 
the  Christian  tradition  in  this  regard  without  hesita- 
tion, there  are  those  who  are  ready  to  argue  that  our 
conclusions  are  wrong,  and,  like  the  devil  in  the  old  say- 
ing, quote  scripture  to  suit  their  purpose.  Which 
means  that  we  must  assume  nothing  upon  this  question, 
but,  if  we  can,  prove  everything! 

It  would  be  a  long  and  undoubtedly  tedious  task  to 
search  the  Scriptures  for  evidence  upon  the  question 
of  Jesus's  attitude  toward  the  use  of  force  in  human 
affairs.  Therefore  is  it  fortunate  that  no  such  ex- 
haustive survey  of  our  problem  is  required.  For  all 
the  arguments  ever  offered  in  contradiction  of  the  as- 
sumption that  Jesus  was  a  non-resistant  are  based  upon 
one  or  all  of  four  very  brief  passages  in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels.  If  we  can  dispose  of  these,  the  whole  case  in 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      163 

opposition  falls  to  pieces,  and  our  original  conception 
stands  unimpaired. 

First  among  these  four  passages  which  seem  to  in- 
validate the  non-resistant  interpretation  of  Jesus's  life 
and  teachings,  is  the  familiar  statement  in  the  thirteenth 
chapter  of  Mark,  "  When  ye  shall  hear  of  wars  and 
rumours  of  wars,  be  not  troubled,  for  such  things  must 
needs  come  to  pass."  Here,  it  is  argued,  is  Jesus  fore- 
telling the  wars  that  are  vexing  the  earth  even  in  our 
day,  and  laying  down  in  so  many  words  the  principle 
of  their  necessity.  How  can  it  be  contended  that  Jesus 
is  a  non-resistant  when  he  distinctly  says  that  the  very 
things,  against  which  the  non-resistant  stands  fronted 
in  deadly  opposition,  "  must  needs  come  to  pass  "? 

The  absurdity  of  this  argument  is  so  apparent  that 
it  is  hardly  necessary,  I  take  it,  for  one  to  waste  time 
and  strength  in  answering  it.  Surely  there  is  some 
difference,  is  there  not,  between  saying  that  it  is  in- 
evitable that  certain  things  shall  transpire  in  the  fu- 
ture, and  saying  that  it  is  right  and  proper  that  such 
things  should  transpire?  I  pick  up  a  letter  written 
by  Count  Tolstoi  to  the  London  Times  some  years  be- 
fore his  death,  in  which  he  states  that,  under  the  con- 
ditions then  prevailing  in  Europe,  it  is  certain  that 
sooner  or  later  the  continent  will  be  engulfed  in  a  uni- 
versal cataclysm  of  arms.  Ergo,  I  must  infer  that  the 
rumour  that  the  great  Russian  was  a  non-resistant  can 
be  no  longer  credited !  I  read  Romain  Rolland's  vast 
novel,  Jean  Christophe,  and  find  in  the  last  volume  a 


164  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

startling  forecast  of  the  outbreak  of  the  present  War  of 
the  Nations.  Ergo,  I  must  presume  that  M.  Rolland 
welcomes  the  conflict  and  approves  of  all  that  Germany 
and  Austria  did  to  precipitate  it !  I  turn  the  pages  oT 
H.  G.  Wells's  Social  Forces  in  England  and  America, 
and,  coming  to  his  essay  on  The  Possible  Collapse  of 
Civilisation,  find  him  anticipating  the  horror  which  the 
armaments  of  modern  nations  have  brought  upon  the 
world.  Ergo,  I  must  take  it  for  granted  that  Wells 
does  not  hate  war,  does  not  believe  in  disarmament,  but 
on  the  contrary  is  to  be  counted  among  the  Treitschkes 
and  Bernhardis,  the  Crambs  and  Robertses,  of  modern 
times !  Is  not  the  folly  of  such  a  mode  of  argument 
too  patent  to  need  serious  refutation?  When  Jesus  de- 
clared that  "  wars  and  rumours  of  wars  .  .  .  must  needs 
come,"  he  simply  showed  that  he  understood  the  stu- 
pidity of  human  reason,  the  blindness  of  human  greed, 
the  immorality  of  national  statecraft.  He  simply 
prophesied  that,  so  long  as  the  temper  of  the  heart  and 
the  conditions  of  society  remained  as  they  were,  there 
could  be  no  "  peace  on  earth,  goodwill  toward  men." 
He  said  what  would  be  —  not  what  ought  to  be  !  And 
coupled  this  with  a  grand  assurance  of  faith,  that  "  such 
things  "  need  not  trouble  us,  since  the  time  must  come 
when  "  such  things  "  shall  not  be ! 

Another  passage  which  is  always  cited  in  this  con- 
nection is  the  famous  text  from  the  tenth  chapter  of 
Matthew,  "  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  send  peace  on 
the  earth;  I  came  not  to  send  peace,  but  a  sword." 
Here  is  a  statement  which  seems  to  be  conclusive,  and 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      165 

therefore  incontestable.  Jesus  declares  categorically 
that  his  mission  is  not  one  of  peace  at  all,  but  one  of 
war.  He  comes  to  earth  not  to  unite  men,  but  to  send 
a  sword  among  them.  It  is  evident  that  he  not  only  be- 
lieves that  "  wars  and  Tumours  of  wars  "  shall  "  come  to 
pass  "  of  their  own  accord,  but  that  he  proposes  to 
make  some  of  those  "  wars  and  rumours  of  wars  "  him- 
self. 

Such  a  literal  interpretation  of  this  martial  text 
seems  to  be  inevitable  —  at  least  until  we  read  on  in  this 
same  chapter  a  little  farther.  "  I  came  not  to  send 
peace,  but  a  sword,"  are  his  words.  But  immediately 
thereafter,  in  the  same  passage,  he  goes  on  to  say,  "  I 
am  come  to  set  a  man  at  variance  against  his  father, 
and  the  daughter  against  her  mother,  and  the  daugh- 
ter-in-law against  her  mother-in-law."  These  sentences 
obviously  belong  together  —  they  are  part  of  the  same 
thought,  or  sequence  in  the  same  discourse.  And  are 
we  to  infer  therefrom  that  Jesus  came  into  the  world 
for  the  single,  distinct  purpose  of  breaking  up  families 
and  severing  households  —  that  his  appointed  mission 
was  to  turn  fathers  against  their  sons,  and  daughters 
against  their  mothers,  and  daughters-in-law  against 
their  mothers-in-law? 

The  mere  suggestion  takes  us  at  once  to  the  reductio 
ad  absurdum  which  is  involved  in  any  attempt  to  in- 
terpret literally,  "  I  came  not  to  send  peace,  but  a 
sword."  What  Jesus  was  emphasising  here,  in  his  vivid 
oriental  fashion,  was  the  radical  and  therefore  divisive 
character  of  the  gospel  which  he  had  come  to  preach. 


166  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

His  message  of  pure  idealism  went  to  the  roots  of 
things.  It  separated  instantly  the  sheep  from  the 
goats  —  the  worshippers  of  Mammon  from  the  worship- 
pers of  God.  Right  in  his  own  household,  he  had  seen 
it  divide  himself  from  his  mother  and  his  brethren. 
And  what  had  taken  place  in  his  home,  he  felt  certain 
was  bound  to  take  place  in  many  others.  The  preach- 
ing of  the  Kingdom  would  sever  fathers  from  sons,  and 
mothers  from  daughters.  Such  divisions  were  not  to 
be  welcomed,  much  less  plotted  and  planned,  but  were 
to  be  accepted  when  they  came.  They  were  simply  the 
altogether  regrettable  and  yet  inevitable  results  of  the 
proclamation  of  a  new  truth,  a  new  commandment,  a 
new  age !  Let  no  man  seek  for  compromises  —  or,  hav- 
ing put  his  hand  to  the  plough,  look  back  —  or, 
having  enlisted,  seek  to  return  and  bury  his  dead. 
"  He  that  loveth  father  or  mother  more  than  me  is  not 
worthy  of  me ;  and  he  that  loveth  son  or  daughter  more 
than  me  is  not  worthy  of  me.  And  he  that  taketh  not 
his  cross,  and  followeth  after  me,  is  not  worthy  of  me." 
Thus  spoke  the  Master  his  awful  challenge  of  allegiance 
—  and  thus  he  lifted  the  sword  that  cleaved  those  who 
heard  from  those  who  would  not  hear ! 

More  serious  than  either  of  these  two  passages  which 
we  have  cited,  is  the  third,  which  appears  in  the  story  of 
the  Last  Supper  as  told  by  St.  Luke.  Jesus  and  his 
disciples  were  conversing  together  after  the  evening 
meal,  and  he  was  telling  them  something  of  the  perils 
which  lay  before  them.  "  And  he  said  unto  them,  When 
I  sent  you  without  purse,  and  scrip,  and  shoes,  lacked 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      167 

ye  anything?  and  they  said,  Nothing.  Then  he  said 
unto  them,  But  now,  he  that  hath  a  purse,  let  him 
take  it,  and  likewise  his  scrip;  and  he  that  hath  no 
sword,  let  him  sell  his  garment,  and  buy  one."  And 
when  he  had  said  this,  we  are  told,  that  they  said, 
"  Lord,  behold,  here  are  two  swords."  And  he  said 
unto  them,  "  It  is  enough." 

This  passage  has  always  proved  troublesome,  not 
only  to  non-resistants,  but  to  all  students  of  the  gospels, 
who  have  without  exception  found  it  difficult  to  recon- 
cile with  the  actions  of  Jesus  on  other  and  similar  occa- 
sions. Apart  from  all  questions  of  his  non-resistant 
attitude,  this  speech  of  his  simply  does  not  seem  to  fit 
in,  somehow  or  other,  with  the  rest  of  his  career. 
Therefore  do  we  find  various  attempts  to  explain  it  or 
even  argue  it  away.  What  these  are,  we  need  not  here 
enumerate.  Renan,  who  declares  flatly  in  his  Vie  de 
Jesu,  that  Jesus  was  momentarily  overcome  by  fear, 
and  Nathaniel  Schmidt,  who  surmises  in  his  Prophet 
of  Nazareth  that  the  incident  in  all  probability  never 
took  place  as  here  recorded,  are  perhaps  typical. 
What  is  important  for  us  to  observe  is,  that  all  higher 
critics  of  the  gospel  narrative  agree  that  here  is  some- 
thing that  does  not  fit  in  with  the  rest  of  the  picture, 
something  that  needs  special  study  and  consideration, 
something  that  must  be  explained;  and  that  they  all 
straightway  proceed  to  find  some  explanation  which  is 
different  from  that  which  the  passage  seems  to  imply 
upon  its  face!  What  we  have  here,  to  my  mind,  is 
simply  a  bold  endeavour  on  the  part  of  Jesus,  through 


168  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

the  figure  of  the  sword  which  he  had  used  so  many  times 
before,  to  impress  upon  his  over-sanguine  and  there- 
fore heedless  disciples  the  seriousness  of  the  situation 
which  was  before  them,  and  thus  to  prepare  them  for 
disaster.  The  whole  atmosphere  of  the  Last  Supper 
was  that  of  farewell.  Every  word  of  the  Master  was 
that  of  forecast  of  arrest,  punishment,  death.  The 
spilt  wine,  the  broken  bread,  the  promised  betrayal,  the 
judgment  of  Peter  —  all  pointed  straight  to  Gethsem- 
ane,  the  Sanhedrin,  and  Calvary.  The  situation  has 
changed,  was  the  message  of  the  hour  —  our  enemies  are 
upon  us.  There  was  a  time  when  we  could  go  "  without 
purse,  and  scrip,  and  shoes,"  but  not  now !  If  there- 
fore there  be  any  one  among  you  who  cares  particularly 
about  saving  his  own  skin,  he  cannot  do  a  better  thing 
than  sell  his  cloak  and  buy  a  sword,  for  this  is  a  time 
for  swords !  The  incomparable  irony  was  at  work  here, 
as  on  so  many  other  occasions  in  the  Master's  speech. 
And  as  usual  it  was  totally  misunderstood.  He  may 
have  had  in  mind  many  things,  when  he  thus  instructed 
his  followers.  But  that  he  actually  bade  them  to  buy 
swords  and  defend  themselves  against  arrest,  is  too  pre- 
posterous for  discussion.  It  is  put  absolutely  out  of 
court  by  the  great  event  which  transpired  only  a  few 
moments  later  in  the  Garden,  when  Peter  drew  a  sword 
against  the  servant  of  the  High  Priest.  "  Put  up  thy 
sword  again  into  its  place,"  said  Jesus,  "  for  all  they 
that  take  the  sword  shall  perish  with  the  sword." 

But  one  passage  more  remains  to  be  considered,  and 
this  the  most  serious  of  all.     I  refer,  of  course,  to  the 


EXEMPLARS  Oi   NON-RESISTANCE      169 

cleansing  of  the  Temple.  That  this  event  took  place 
as  recorded  is  unquestionable.  That  it  constitutes  an 
act  of  open  violence  is  similarly  unquestionable.  Any 
such  explanation  as  that  piously  offered  by  Adin  Ballou 
in  his  Christian  Non-Resistance,  that  Jesus  may  have 
driven  the  money-changers  from  the  court-yard,  but 
there  is  no  evidence  that  he  struck  any  one  of  them,  is 
of  course  the  most  flagrant  kind  of  hair-splitting. 
What  we  have  here  is  a  well-authenticated  violation  of 
the  principle  of  non-resistance  —  and  why  not  accept 
it  as  such?  The  episode  is  chiefly  remarkable  in  the 
fife  of  the  Nazarene,  not  for  anything  which  it  teaches 
in  itself,  but  for  its  inconsistency  with  the  rest  of  his 
career.  Never  at  any  other  time,  so  far  as  we  know, 
did  he  precipitate  riot  or  himself  assault  his  enemies. 
But  this  time  he  did  —  this  time  he  failed  to  live  up  to 
the  inordinately  exacting  demands  of  his  own  gospel  of 
brotherhood.  Nor  is  the  circumstance  at  all  difficult 
to  understand!  Jesus  came  to  Jerusalem  tired,  worn, 
hunted.  He  knew  that  he  walked  straight  into  the  arms 
of  his  enemies,  and  undoubtedly  therefore  straight  to 
his  own  death.  Weary,  desperate,  confused,  he  came  to 
the  Temple  to  pray  —  and  here,  right  before  the  altars 
of  his  God,  were  the  money-changers  —  here  in  the 
sacred  places,  the  type  and  symbol  of  that  com- 
mercialised religion  which  he  most  abhorred  and  which 
he  knew  was  certain  in  the  end  to  destroy  him.  What 
wonder  that  a  mighty  flood  of  anger  surged  up  in  his 
soul,  and  for  the  moment  overwhelmed  him.  What 
wonder  that  he  seized  the  rushes  from  the  floor,  and 


170  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

swept  the  place  clean  of  its  profaners.  It  was  mag- 
nificent, we  grant  you,  but  it  was  not  war,  in  Jesus's 
sense  of  that  word.  This  was  a  moment  of  defeat,  and 
not  of  victory! 

Such  are  the  passages  upon  which  those,  who  deny 
that  Jesus  was  a  non-resistant,  found  their  case. 
Whether  we  have  explained  these  passages  satisfactorily 
or  not,  is  after  all  not  a  matter  of  great  importance. 
For  even  though  every  one  of  the  four  were  to  be  in- 
terpreted as  our  militant  friends  would  have  us  believe, 
and  even  though  the  four  were  to  be  multiplied  to  four- 
teen or  forty,  we  should  still  be  obliged  to  hold  to  the 
non-resistant  character  of  Jesus's  life  and  teaching. 
Whatever  our  interpretations  of  separate  speeches  and 
episodes,  three  general  facts  in  regard  to  the  work  of 
the  Nazarene  stand  unimpeachable. 

In  the  first  place,  whatever  may  be  said  about  sep- 
arate incidents,  the  whole  spirit  of  Jesus's  life,  as  re- 
flected in  the  four  gospels,  and  in  every  apocryphal 
and  patristic  memory  of  him  that  has  been  preserved  to 
us,  is  that  of  a  man  who  believed  profoundly  in  the 
gospel  of  love ;  whatever  may  be  said  about  isolated 
passages,  the  whole  burden  of  Jesus's  teaching  is  that 
of  the  gospel  of  forgiving  injuries,  doing  kindness,  and 
fostering  goodwill.  The  Nazarene  had  his  inconsistent 
moments,  like  the  rest  of  us.  There  is  nothing  easier 
than  to  go  through  the  gospels  and  point  out  the  con- 
tradictions in  the  record.  But  whatever  his  occasional 
lapses  from  his  own  august  ideals,  his  power,  his  desire, 
his  spirit,  are  plain  beyond  possibility  of  confusion. 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE       171 

He  condemned  and  eschewed  violence.  He  deprecated 
and  avoided  the  use  of  force.  At  his  best  moments  he 
sought  to  "  turn  the  other  cheek,"  to  love  his  enemies, 
to  do  no  evil  for  any  cause.  Not  by  one  or  two,  or 
even  four,  exceptions,  which  can  by  hook  or  crook  be 
found  in  one  of  the  most  stressful  careers  in  history, 
must  the  man  be  judged,  but  by  the  whole  rule  of  his 
life.  The  workmanship  may  here  and  there  be  defec- 
tive, but  the  design  is  plain. 

Secondly,  at  the  supreme  crisis  of  his  life,  when  he 
was  put  to  the  ultimate  test  of  his  convictions,  Jesus 
made  perfectly  plain  the  import  of  his  doctrine.  When 
he  was  set  upon  in  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane,  three 
things  were  at  stake:  First  of  all,  his  own  life.  Sec- 
ondly, so  far  as  he  could  foresee  at  the  moment,  the  lives 
of  his  well-beloved  disciples  who  had  left  all  and  fol- 
lowed at  his  bidding.  Thirdly,  again  so  far  as  he 
could  foresee,  the  whole  destiny  of  the  reform  move- 
ment which,  at  some  cost,  he  had  initiated  and  car- 
ried forward  in  Israel.  Now,  had  Jesus's  own  life  alone 
been  placed  in  jeopardy  by  the  action  of  Caiaphas,  he 
might  well  have  disdained  to  resort  to  arms.  This, 
certainly,  is  understandable.  But  what  shall  we  say 
when  we  see  him  refusing  to  use  the  sword  offered  him 
by  Peter,  to  defend  his  disciples  and  perpetuate  his 
work?  If  ever  there  is  excuse  or  reason  for  the  use  of 
force,  it  is  in  defence  of  the  persons  of  those  we  love,  or 
of  the  cause  of  truth  which  we  espouse.  Here,  if  any- 
v.herc,  it  is  agreed,  are  sanctions  of  violence.  And 
yet  Jesus  steadfastly  refused  to  avail  himself  of  them. 


172  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

Any  one  who  can  look  upon  Gethsemane,  the  Sanhe- 
drin,  the  house  of  Pilate,  and  Calvary,  and  deny  that 
Jesus  was  a  non-resistant,  seems  beyond  the  reach  of 
reason. 

Lastly,  as  we  shall  see  at  length  in  the  next  chapter 
and  need  therefore  only  mention  in  this  place,  it  is  to  be 
noted  that  the  men  who  knew  Jesus,  and  the  men  who 
knew  the  men  who  knew  Jesus,  were  so  convinced  that 
he  was  a  non-resistant  that,  even  in  the  face  of  the 
crudest  martyrdom  the  world  has  known,  not  one  of 
them  lifted  the  sword  in  self-defence.  They  preferred 
to  die  rather  than  to  take  up  arms,  and  many  there 
were  who  walked  the  path  of  death  in  obedience  to  their 
faith. 

These  three  facts  cannot  be  denied.  Any  teachings 
that  seem  to  contradict,  and  any  conduct  that  seems  to 
fall  short  of,  the  perfect  idealism  embodied  in  these 
facts,  must  be  counted  as  of  small  significance.  If 
Jesus  was  not  a  non-resistant,  then  there  are  no  non- 
resistants.  We  are  talking  about  creatures  as  grossly 
fabled  as  the  roc  or  unicorn. 


Here,  now,  are  the  four  supreme  exemplars  of  non- 
resistance  who  come  to  us  from  ancient  times.  In  the 
early  days  of  the  Great  War,  it  was  the  fashion  to 
speculate  as  to  what  might  have  happened  in  Europe  if 
the  socialists  had  but  stood  fast  by  their  pacifist  prin- 
ciples. Is  it  not  worth  speculating  at  any  time,  in  much 
the  same  way,  as  to  what  might  have  happened  in  the 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      173 

world  at  large  long  since,  if  the  professed  disciples  of 
these  four  great  religious  prophets  had  from  the  begin- 
ning been  faithful  to  their  gospel?  The  total  popula- 
tion of  the  world  in  1910  was  estimated  in  round  num- 
bers to  be  1,652,945,000.  Of  these,  483,000,000  were 
Buddhists  and  Taoists,  610,000,000  Christians,  11,- 
000,000  Jews  —  a  total  of  1,104,000,000.  Is  it  too 
much  to  assert,  in  the  light  of  these  figures,  that,  if  these 
millions  were  "  faithful  to  the  heavenly  vision  "  seen  and 
revealed  by  their  prophets,  wars  would  cease  forthwith 
and  peace  at  last  be  established  among  mankind? 


CHAPTER  VI 

EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE 
(Modern) 


"  Peace  is  of  all  things  the  best  and  happiest.  War  on  the  con- 
trary is  the  blackest  villainy  of  which  human  nature  is  capable.  .  .  . 

"The  object  of  war  is  to  do  all  possible  injury  to  the  enemy. 
But  can  we  hurt  essentially  without  hurting  at  the  same  time  and 
by  the  same  means  ourselves?  .  .  .  What  is  there  not  to  be  feared 
in  it  and  from  it?  ...  Great  are  the  evils  which  must  be  sub- 
mitted to,  in  order  to  accomplish  an  end  itself  a  greater  evil  than 
all  that  have  preceded  it.  Indeed,  if  we  were  to  calculate  the 
matter  fairly  and  form  a  just  computation  ...  no  men  of  sound 
mind  or  honest  heart  would  ever  rush  headlong  into  the  dangers 
and  difficulties  (of  violence)  when  they  may  enjoy  the  blessings 
of  peace  with  little  trouble  " — Erasmus,  in  The  Plea  of  Reason, 
Religion  and  Humanity  Against  War. 


CHAPTER  VI 

EXEMPLARS    OF    NON-RESISTANCE    (MODERN) 

THE  earliest  exemplars  of  non-resistance  in  the 
modern  world  were  the  early  Christians,  not  a  few  of 
whom  like  Stephen,  died  for  the  sake  of  the  cause  which 
they  had  espoused  without  offering  resistance  to  their 
enemies.  Pre-eminent  among  these  primitive  witnesses, 
for  the  vividness  of  his  words  as  well  as  the  heroism  of 
his  deeds,  was  Paul,  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles. 


Paul  first  makes  his  appearance  in  history  as  the 
"  young  man  "  who  guarded  the  "  clothes  "  of  the  exe- 
cutioners of  Stephen  and  "  consented  "  unto  the  killing 
of  this  first  of  all  the  martyrs.  Later  on  he  is  described 
as  one  of  the  most  active  and  ruthless  of  the  persecutors 
of  the  little  bands  of  Christians  which  were  scattered 
throughout  Palestine.  Terrible  is  the  passage  in  Acts, 
which  speaks  of  him  as  "  breathing  out  threatenings  and 
slaughter  against  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,"  and  going 
"  unto  the  high  priest "  for  "  letters  to  the  syna- 
gogues "  that  he  might  be  duly  commissioned  to 
"  bring  bound  unto  Jerusalem  "  any  that  he  "  found 
of  this  way,  whether  they  were  men  or  women." 
At  this  time,  as  later,  intense  in  his  convic- 
tions and  thoroughgoing  in  his  actions,  Paul  found 

177 


178  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

it  entirely  consistent  with  his  Pharisaic  Judaism 
to  wield  the  fire  and  sword  of  persecution.  The  tradi- 
tion of  Judas  Maccabeus  had  long  since  overshadowed 
that  of  the  great  Isaiah !  But  the  very  moment  that  he 
became  converted  to  Christianity,  he  swung  far  over  to 
the  other  extreme,  and  in  accordance  with  what  he  re- 
garded as  the  teaching  and  example  of  Jesus,  became  as 
aident  a  non-resistant  as  he  had  formerly  been  a  cham- 
pion of  force.  Through  all  his  long  service  as  a 
missionary  to  the  Gentile  world,  "  in  labours  abundant, 
in  stripes  above  measure,  in  prisons  more  frequent,  in 
deaths  oft  .  .  .  thrice  beaten  with  rods,  once  stoned, 
...  in  journeyings  often,  in  perils  of  robbers,  in  perils 
by  the  heathen,  in  perils  in  the  city,  in  perils  in  the 
wilderness,  in  perils  among  false  brethren,  ...  in 
weariness  and  painfulness,  in  watchings,  hunger,  thirst, 
fastings,  cold  and  nakedness,"  he  never  swerved  from 
his  obedient  practice  of  that  love  which  he  described  as 
"  the  fulfilling  of  the  law."  No  man  ever  preserved 
greater  fidelity  to  the  ideal  of  the  non-resistant  life 
under  more  trying  circumstances  than  Paul.  And  no 
man,  be  it  said  at  the  same  time,  ever  gave  more  valiant 
service  against  what  he  regarded  as  falsehood  and  evil. 

Nor  did  his  service  end  with  his  deeds.  More  valu- 
able in  certain  ways  than  anything  that  he  did,  were 
the  deathless  words  which  he  wrote  in  interpretation  of 
the  Christian  gospel.  All  through  his  epistles  there 
sounds  the  constant  appeal  to  his  followers  to  "  live  at 
peace  with  all  men,"  and  again  and  again  he  describes 
with  unequalled  clearness  and  power  the  meaning  of 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      179 

peace.  Nowhere  in  all  literature  —  not  even  in  the 
gospels  themselves  —  is  there  a  more  precise  and  beau- 
tiful elucidation  of  the  non-resistant  doctrine  than  that 
found  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Romans.  More  satis- 
factory than  the  famous  "  resist  not  evil  "  passage,  of 
which  it  is  frankly  a  re-statement,  are  the  sublime  words, 
"  Bless  them  which  persecute  you ;  bless,  and  curse 
not.  .  .  .  Recompense  to  no  man  evil  for  evil.  .  .  . 
Avenge  not  yourselves,  but  rather  give  place  unto 
wrath ;  for  it  is  written,  Vengeance  is  mine,  I  will  repay, 
saith  the  Lord.  Therefore  if  thine  enemy  hunger,  feed 
him ;  if  he  thirst,  give  him  drink :  for  in  so  doing,  thou 
shalt  heap  coals  of  fire  upon  his  head.  Be  not  over- 
come of  evil,  but  overcome  evil  with  good." 

ii 

Cruel  as  were  the  trials  of  the  early  followers  of 
Jesus,  however,  the  non-resistant  aspect  of  Christian 
life  only  came  into  real  prominence  with  the  extension 
of  the  movement  to  the  great  centres  of  the  Roman 
world,  and  its  consequent  appearance  as  an  important 
element  in  the  life  of  the  Empire.  Then  came  the  clash 
with  the  public  authorities,  as  a  result  of  the  refusal 
of  the  Roman  citizens  converted  to  the  new  religion  to 
serve  in  the  army.  There  was  more  than  one  reason,  of 
course,  why  the  early  Christians  declined  to  enter  the 
ranks  of  the  legions.  First  of  all,  they  could  not  con- 
scientiously take  the  oath  of  obedience  to  the  Emperor 
which  was  required  of  every  legionary.  In  the  second 
place,  they  were  unwilling  to  place  upon  the  Emperor's 


180  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

shrine  the  offerings  exacted  of  every  soldier  and  thus 
worship  the  ruler  as  a  divine  or  semi-divine  being.  Fur- 
thermore, they  were  well  aware,  if  they  enlisted,  that 
they  were  liable  to  be  summoned  at  any  time,  in  obe- 
dience to  the  whim  of  the  Emperor  or  even  of  a  pro- 
vincial officer,  to  arrest  their  fellow-Christians,  torture 
them  and  put  them  to  death.  More  important  than  any 
such  reasons  as  these,  however,  is  the  simple  fact  that 
conversion  to  Christianity,  in  this  age  of  the  world's 
history,  involved  conversion  to  the  ideal  of  non-resist- 
ance. No  man,  so  it  was  believed  in  this  benighted  era 
could  be  a  soldier  of  the  Empire  and  at  the  same  time  a 
follower  of  the  Nazarene.  To  draw  the  sword,  even  in 
the  p\iblic  service  of  the  country,  was  a  flagrant  viola- 
tion of  Jesus's  law  of  life.  Therefore  did  they  refuse ; 
and  many  were  those  who  walked  the  bloody  path  of 
martyrdom  as  the  price  of  this  refusal. 

The  writings  which  have  come  to  us  in  abundance  from 
the  church  fathers  of  the  first  three  centuries  after 
Christ,  give  ample  evidence  of  the  depth  and  thorough- 
ness of  the  early  Christian  attitude  upon  this  issue. 
The  idea  of  non-resistance  in  its  most  extreme  form  is 
written  all  over  the  pages  of  this  patristic  literature. 
In  one  of  the  most  famous  of  the  letters  of  the  great 
teacher,  Justin  Martyr  (circa  150  A.  D.),  we  find  a  cita- 
tion of  the  passage  from  Isaiah  prophesying  the  day 
when  "  nation  shall  not  lift  up  sword  against  nation, 
neither  shall  they  learn  war  any  more,"  followed  imme- 
diately by  the  impressive  declaration  of  Justin,  that 
"  this  prophecy  is  already  being  fulfilled,  since  we  who 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      181 

formerly  used  to  murder  one  another,  not  only  now  re- 
frain from  making  war  upon  our  enemies,  but  also,  that 
we  may  not  lie  nor  deceive  our  enemies,  willingly  die  con- 
fessing Christ." 

Another  striking  testimony  comes  to  us  from  the 
great  Tertullian  (circa  200  A.  D.),  the  ablest  and  most 
zealous  of  the  Christian  leaders  of  his  day.  Retorting 
upon  some  of  his  pagan  critics,  who  had  accused  the 
Christians  of  all  sorts  of  crime,  especially  the  crime 
of  non-resistance,  Tertullian  says,  "  Shall  (the  Chris- 
tian) apply  the  chain  and  prison,  torture  and  death, 
who  is  not  even  the  avenger  of  his  own  wrongs?  Shall 
it  be  held  lawful  to  make  an  occupation  of  the  sword, 
when  the  Lord  proclaims  that  he  who  takes  the  sword 
shall  perish  by  the  sword?  "  And  then  repudiating  the 
charge  of  cowardice  brought  against  his  brethren,  be- 
cause they  refused  to  enlist  in  the  legions,  he  continues, 
"  For  what  wars  should  we  not  be  fit,  we  who  so  willingly 
yield  ourselves  to  the  sword,  if  in  our  religion  it  were 
not  counted  better  to  be  slain  than  to  slay  ?  " 

Especially  impressive  is  the  testimony  of  Lactantius 
(circa  260—325  A.  D.),  not  only  because  of  the  uncom- 
promising character  of  his  words,  but  also  because  of 
the  comparatively  late  period  of  his  career.  Already 
by  the  end  of  the  third  century,  the  early  passion  for 
non-resistance,  as  for  various  other  Christian  ideals, 
was  beginning  to  cool,  but  Lactantius  spoke  forth  as 
boldty  as  any  of  those  who  had  preceded  him  in  the 
earlier  and  less  corrupt  periods  of  Christian  life. 
*'  When  God  forbids  us  to  kill,"  he  says  in  The  Divine 


182  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

Institutes,  "  he  not  only  prohibits  us  from  open  vio- 
lence, which  is  not  even  allowed  by  the  public  laws,  but 
he  warns  us  against  the  commission  of  those  things, 
which  are  esteemed  lawful  among  men.  Thus  it  can 
never  be  lawful  for  a  righteous  man  to  go  to  war,  since 
his  warfare  is  in  righteousness  itself ;  nor  to  accuse  any 
one  of  a  capital  charge,  since  it  makes  no  difference 
whether  you  put  a  man  to  death  by  word  or  by  sword, 
since  it  is  the  act  of  putting  to  death  which  is  pro- 
hibited. Therefore,  with  regard  to  this  precept  of 
God,  there  can  be  no  exception  at  all  ...  it  is  always 
unlawful  to  put  a  man  to  death." 

So  do  the  evidences  of  Christianity  multiply.  Adin 
Ballou,  in  his  Christian  Non-Resistance^  has  gathered 
together  a  series  of  some  of  the  more  striking  and  pithy 
sayings  of  the  early  writers  upon  this  point.  "  One 
says,  *  It  is  not  lawful  for  a  Christian  to  bear  arms.' 
Another,  '  Because  I  am  a  Christian,  I  have  abandoned 
my  profession  as  a  soldier.'  A  third,  '  I  am  a  Chris- 
tian, and  therefore  I  cannot  fight.'  A  fourth,  '  I  can- 
not fight,  if  I  die ;  I  am  not  a  soldier  of  this  world,  but  a 
soldier  of  God.' '  It  is  evident  that,  in  these  primitive 
days  at  least,  there  was  no  compromise  upon  the  ques- 
tion whatsoever.  More  than  one,  as  for  example  a 
certain  Maximilian,  died  rather  than  take  up  arms  and 
fight  against  the  invaders  of  the  Empire.  Even  though 
the  nation  was  destroyed  by  barbarians,  they  still  be- 
lieved that  they  must  not  kill. 

Of  course  the  charge  was  frequently  brought  against 
these  early  Christians,  as  it  is  against  pacifists  to- 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      183 

day,  that  if  their  conduct  became  a  rule  of  universal 
conduct,  it  would  mean  the  end  of  civilisation.  Thus 
Celsus,  the  opponent  of  Justin,  wrote  in  one  of  his  con- 
troversial epistles  — "  You  will  not  bear  arms  in  the 
service  of  the  Empire  when  your  services  are  needed ; 
and  if  all  people  should  act  upon  this  principle,  the  Em- 
pire would  be  over-run  by  barbarians."  To  which 
statement  it  was  unfalteringly  replied  that  this  matter 
was  in  the  hands  not  of  men  but  of  God !  If  God  de- 
sired the  barbarians  to  over-run  the  Empire,  then  this 
was  a  part  of  "  the  divine  plan  "  *  and  must  be  endured. 
Even  though  this  part  of  the  divine  plan  could  not  be 
understood,  that  other  part  of  the  divine  plan,  the  law 
of  love,  was  perfectly  plain  to  every  conscience.  There- 
fore must  this  law  be  heeded,  though  the  end  of  the 
world  come.  "Fiat  justitia,  ruat  coelum ! "  "Even 
though  St.  Peter  himself  should  descend  out  of  heaven, 
and  should  come  to  us  with  the  declaration  that  we  must 
take  up  arms  for  the  sake  of  saving  Rome  from  the  bar- 
barians," said  one  of  the  Fathers,  "  I  would  not  be- 
lieve it ;  for  the  words  of  Jesus  are  more  sure  than  even 
such  a  miracle  as  this." 

m 

By  the  time  that  the  third  century  A.  D.  was  well 
under  way,  it  was  evident  that  the  original  zeal  of  Chris- 
tian discipleship  was  beginning  to  wane,  and  its  primi- 
tive characteristics  to  adapt  themselves  more  and  more 

i  How  much  a  part  of  "  the  divine  plan,"  or  a  necessary  stage 
in  the  evolution  of  civilisation,  this  barbarian  invasion  was,  not 
even  these  early  Christians  could  have  imagined ! 


184  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

closely  to  the  worldly  environment  of  the  Empire.  By 
the  time  that  Constantine  was  converted  and  Christi- 
anity made  the  official  religion  of  his  dominions,  the 
process  of  spiritual  disintegration  was  far  advanced, 
and  only  needed  this  crisis  of  success  to  become  com- 
plete. It  is  common  to  speak  of  this  year,  312,  as  the 
date  which  marks  the  conquest  of  the  Roman  Empire  by 
the  Christian  church ;  but  much  more  accurate  would  it 
be,  to  my  mind,  to  describe  it  as  the  date  which  marks 
the  conquest  of  the  church  by  the  Empire.  For  at 
this  fateful  moment,  the  religion  of  Jesus  disappeared, 
like  a  hidden  river,  not  to  emerge  again  for  more  than  a 
thousand  years.  Like  every  hidden  river,  the  lost 
stream  of  spiritual  life  made  green  the  fields  beneath 
which  it  found  its  way,  and  nourished  many  a  fair 
growth  of  blossom  and  fruit.  But  it  was  seldom  seen 
of  men,  and  was  almost  as  much  lost  as  though  it  had 
never  been. 

From  this  date  on,  the  history  of  Christianity  is  the 
history  not  of  a  redemptive  religion,  but  of  a  corrupt 
ecclesiastical  state  and  a  repressive  theological  system. 
Not  Jesus,  but  Augustine  and  Thomasius,  Gregory  and 
Innocent,  are  the  dominating  figures.  The  world,  and 
not  the  church,  has  won ! 

Now  one  of  the  most  surprising  results  of  this  con- 
quest of  Christianity  by  the  Empire,  is  the  practical 
annihilation  of  the  doctrine  of  non-resistance,  which 
had  played  so  conspicuous  and  heroic  a  part  in  the 
early  history  of  the  church.  Even  before  the  con- 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      185 

version  of  Constantine,  Christians  here  and  there  had 
begun  to  give  way,  especially  on  the  vital  issue  of  join- 
ing the  army ;  but  from  the  time  that  the  Emperor  was 
numbered  among  the  followers  of  the  humble  Nazarene 
and  proclaimed  the  cross  as  the  symbol  of  victory  on 
the  field  of  battle,  the  cause  was  for  the  time  being  al- 
most entirely  lost.  The  army  now  became  the  weapon 
of  the  church ;  and  service  in  the  army,  therefore,  a  test 
of  discipleship.  Here  and  there,  to  be  sure,  would 
rise  up  a  stalwart  apostle,  who,  like  another  Lac- 
tantius,  would  remind  the  world  of  the  recorded  teach- 
ings of  the  Master.  But  these  were  "  voices  crying  in 
the  wilderness,"  and  they  soon  subsided.  The  great 
officers  and  teachers  of  the  church  were  now  not  only 
very  complaisant  on  this  matter  of  militarism,  but  were 
themselves  soldiers.  Bishops  wore  armour  and  rode 
into  battle  side  by  side  with  "  men  of  iron."  Legions 
were  recruited  to  conquer  foreign  lands  in  the  name  of 
Christ.  Bloody  conquerors,  like  Charlemagne  in  Sax- 
ony, were  blessed  for  their  feats  of  arms,  which  brought 
unnumbered  thousands  of  helpless  captives  to  the 
waters  of  baptism.  And  at  last,  as  a  fitting  climax, 
came  the  Crusades,  with  all  Christendom  transformed 
into  an  armed  camp  for  the  slaughter  of  the  Paynim 
and  the  recovery  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre.  Never  was 
so  rapid  and  complete  a  revolution !  In  five  centuries 
the  religion  of  the  cross  had  become  the  religion  of  the 
sword.  And  so  triumphantly  has  the  sword  prevailed 
down  to  our  own  day,  that  it  is  possible  for  a  conserva- 


186  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

tive  historian,  like  John  Morley,  soberly  to  affirm,  that 
"more  blood  has  been  shed  for  this  cause  (Christian- 
ity) than  for  any  other  cause  whatsoever!" 

It  would  be  wrong,  however,  to  imply  that  the  non- 
resistant  idea  wholly  disappeared  from  the  hearts  of 
men,  even  in  the  black  midnight  of  the  Middle  Ages. 
The  hidden  river  of  pure  Christianity  was  not  always 
a  hidden  river.  Here  and  there  it  came  rippling  to 
the  surface,  as  living  water,  and  revealed  thereby  the 
presence  of  the  stream.  All  through  the  Mediaeval 
period,  in  other  words,  there  appeared  little  groups  of 
men  and  women  who  held  to  the  old  ideas  and 
clung  to  the  old  practices  of  the  primitive  church. 
These  sects,  as  they  were  called,  were  far  removed 
from  the  main  thoroughfares  of  Christian  life.  They 
were  unfailingly  condemned  as  heretical,  and  fre- 
quently persecuted  with  the  most  terrible  severity.  Al- 
together outside  the  pale  of  official  Christianity,  they 
played  little  part  in  the  history  of  the  church  and  ex- 
erted little  tangible  influence  upon  the  world's  develop- 
ment. But  they  at  least  remained  "  faithful  to  the 
heavenly  vision  " —  kept  burning  bright  and  clear  a 
light  in  dark  places  —  and  preserved  to  a  more  sympa- 
thetic era  the  type  of  early  Christian  life  and  thought. 
It  is  impressive  to  note  some  of  the  characteristics  of 
these  heretical  bodies,  all  of  which,  it  is  needless  to 
point  out,  were  consistently  non-resistant. f 

In  the  first  place,  their  membership  was  invariably 
drawn  from  the  ranks  of  the  common  people  —  in  most 

1  See  his  Voltaire,  Chapter  I. 

2  See  "Voices  in  the  Wilderness"  in  Christ  and  War, 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      181 

cases  the  poverty-stricken  populace  of  the  country- 
sides. Rare  indeed  was  it  to  find  any  person  of  educa- 
tion, wealth  or  social  respectability  associated  with 
these  sects.  Peasants,  artisans,  travelling  journey- 
men, strolling  players,  seers  and  saints  of  doubtful 
lineage,  these  were  the  kind  of  men  and  women  who 
comprised  these  strange  groups  of  spiritual  outlaws  — 
men  and  women,  it  should  be  noted,  who  were  much 
nearer  the  type  of  those  who  heard  gladly  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Nazarene  than  the  ecclesiastical  princes  who 
monopolised  his  name. 

In  the  second  place,  these  heretical  sects  were  at  one 
in  their  predominant  interest  not  in  the  sacraments  of 
worship  or  the  articles  of  theological  instruction,  but 
in  the  things  of  the  spirit.  Christianity  was  to  them 
not  an  institution  to  be  supported,  nor  a  creed  to  be 
learned,  nor  a  ritual  to  be  performed,  but  first  and 
foremost,  a  way  of  life.  They  were  concerned  not  with 
the  definitions  of  the  Godhead,  but  with  the  command- 
ments of  God.  They  were  interested  not  in  the  nature 
of  Christ,  but  in  the  nature  of  the  Christ-life.  What 
to  do,  whom  to  serve,  how  to  live  —  these,  and  not  in- 
tricate theories  of  transubstantiation  or  supereroga- 
tion, were  the  problems  of  religion.  And  to  the  settle- 
ment of  these  problems,  in  the  light  of  the  Master's 
teachings,  they  devoted  the  glad  service  of  their  days. 

Lastly,  it  is  to  be  noted,  that  these  obscure  and 
heretical  sects  were  all  of  them  composed  of  men  and 
women  who  were  ceaseless  readers  of  the  Bible,  and 
more  or  less  literal  interpreters  of  the  scriptural  text. 


188  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

The  Roman  church  knew  perfectly  well  what  it  was 
doing  when  it  declared  that  the  uninstructed  reading 
of  the  Bible  was  dangerous  business,  and  forthwith 
took  the  sacred  book  from  the  hands  and  eyes  of  its 
communicants.  It  was  obvious,  even  to  a  Mediaeval 
bishop,  that  there  was  a  serious  discrepancy  between 
ecclesiastical  Christianity  and  the  religion  of  Jesus, 
and  that  it  was  important  that  this  discrepancy  should 
not  be  made  apparent  by  indiscriminate  reading  of  the 
Bible.  It  is  no  accident  that  such  reading  was  as 
uniformly  characteristic  of  these  Mediaeval  sects  as  it 
was  of  the  primitive  churches  of  the  second  century. 

It  will  be  instructive,  as  well  as  inspiring,  to  name 
some  of  these  sects  and  consider  for  a  moment  some  of 
the  ideals  which  they  tried  to  serve  in  these  dark  and 
terrible  years  of  Christian  history. 

Here,  for  example,  are  the  Cathari,  who  first  ap- 
peared in  Bulgaria  in  the  ninth  century.  By  the  elev- 
enth century,  they  had  spread  abroad  through  the 
neighbouring  countries,  and  had  attracted  so  much  un- 
favourable attention,  that  they  were  honoured  with 
persecution.  The  word  Cathari,  significantly  enough, 
means  "  the  pure  men."  In  some  places  they  were 
called  the  Slavoni,  because  of  their  origin  among  the 
Slav  population  of  southeastern  Europe.  Still  more 
frequently  they  were  styled  the  "  Weavers,"  for  the 
obvious  reason  that  most  of  them  were  weavers,  or  ar- 
tisans who  supported  themselves  by  some  kind  of  hand 
labour.  These  Cathari  were  primitive  Christians  in 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      189 

the  literal  sense  of  the  word;  and  of  course  were  non- 
resistants  of  the  uncompromising  type.  Therefore  is 
it  a  matter  of  record  that  when  the  persecutors  of 
Rome  fell  upon  them  with  fire  and  sword  and  rack  — 
pillaged  their  homes,  tortured  their  old  and  young, 
and  slaughtered  men,  women  and  children,  all  alike 
without  compunction  —  they  raised  not  a  hand  in  op- 
position. Without  any  attempt  at  self-defence,  they 
died  for  the  faith  that  was  within  them. 

An  equally  noble,  and  much  more  famous  sect,  is  that 
of  the  Waldenses,  which  appeared  in  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury. The  Waldensian  movement,  as  it  is  called,  goes 
back  to  Peter  Waldo,  a  rich  merchant  of  the  city  of 
Lyons.  In  1170,  he  heard  for  the  first  time  the  story 
of  the  rich  young  man  who  was  told  by  Jesus  to  sell  all 
his  goods  and  give  them  to  the  poor.  Good  Waldo 
acted  at  once  upon  this  commandment  of  the  Master, 
and,  like  St.  Francis  after  him,  went  forth  to  preach 
the  gospel  of  goodwill.  From  the  very  beginning,  non- 
resistance  was  an  important  part  of  his  message.  And 
it  is  somewhat  noteworthy  that  he  based  his  teaching  in 
this  regard,  not  merely  upon  the  words  of  Jesus,  but 
also  upon  those  of  Moses.  The  non-resistant  prin- 
ciples of  the  Nazarene,  he  said,  were  only  a  logical  ex- 
tension of  the  Mosaic  law,  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill."  For 
two  centuries,  the  followers  of  Waldo  were  faithful  to 
his  teachings  in  this  as  in  all  other  regards.  Hunted 
from  one  end  of  Europe  to  the  other,  tortured,  slain, 
mutilated,  they  refused  to  take  up  the  sword.  The 


190  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

Waldensian  persecution  constitutes  one  of  the  noblest 
as  well  as  one  of  the  blackest  pages  of  religious  his- 
tory. 

A  still  more  remarkable  group  of  non-resistants  in 
the  Middle  Ages  is  that  of  the  followers  of  John 
Wycliffe  in  England.  An  eloquent  preacher,  pro- 
found scholar,  ardent  reformer,  a  man  of  nervous  en- 
ergy and  kindling  magnetism,  the  translator  of  the  first 
English  Bible  and  the  founder  of  the  epoch-making 
school  of  Lollards,  the  great  Wycliffe  is  the  noblest 
ornament  of  English  history  down  to  his  own  day,  with 
the  single  exception  of  King  Alfred,  and  unquestion- 
ably the  brightest  light  that  glowed  in  the  darkness  of 
the  Middle  Ages.  His  life,  like  that  of  Voltaire,  was 
in  many  ways  an  epoch  in  the  progress  of  the  race. 

A  non-resistant  always,  there  were  few  things  against 
which  Wycliffe  inveighed  more  persistently  than  the 
practice  of  the  priests  of  the  church  in  taking  their 
places  in  the  line  of  battle.  "  Men  say,"  is  his  word 
on  this  issue,  "  that  Christ  bade  his  disciples  sell  their 
coats,  and  buy  them  swords.  But  Christ  taught  not 
his  apostles  to  fight  with  the  sword  of  iron,  but  with 
the  sword  of  God's  word,  which  standeth  in  meekness 
of  heart  and  in  the  prudence  of  man's  tongue."  Long 
after  John  Wycliffe  himself  had  passed  away,  and  his 
followers  were  being  harried  in  the  land,  these  Lollards, 
as  they  were  dubbed,  remained  steadfast  in  their  alle- 
giance to  the  non-resistant  idea  and  commended  it  in 
their  preaching  as  one  of  the  cardinal  principles  of 
Christian  faith.  "  Men  of  war  are  not  allowed  by  the 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      191 

gospel,  for  the  gospel  knoweth  peace  and  not  war," 
was  the  unvarying  language  of  their  speech. 

But  the  influence  of  Wycliffe  was  by  no  means  lim- 
ited to  England  and  his  persecuted  Lollards.  Far 
abroad,  to  the  distant  borders  of  Bohemia,  was  it  car- 
ried by  journeying  artisans  and  students.  Here  in 
this  alien  soil  were  the  seeds  of  his  word  planted;  and 
here  did  they  later  spring  up  into  the  rich  harvest  of 
the  Moravians,  who  constitute  one  of  the  most  beauti- 
ful of  all  the  heretical  orders  of  the  Middle  Ages. 
Faithful  in  all  things,  they  were  especially  faithful  to 
the  doctrine  of  non-resistance.  Says  one  of  the  histo- 
rians of  the  Moravian  church  — "  No  weapon  did  they 
use  except  the  pen.  They  never  retaliated,  never  re- 
belled, never  took  up  arms  in  their  own  defence,  never 
even  appealed  to  the  arm  of  justice.  When  smitten 
on  the  one  cheek,  they  turned  the  other  also."  And 
this  is  true  not  merely  of  yesterday,  be  it  recorded,  but 
of  to-day  as  well.  For  the  Moravian  church,  in  spite 
of  long  persecution,  still  flourishes  in  Bohemia,  and 
only  a  few  years  ago  despatched  a  large  delegation  to 
the  great  International  Congress  of  Religious  Liberals 
in  Berlin. 

Not  so  much  an  heretical  sect  outside  the  church  as 
a  great  movement  of  reform  within  the  church,  and 
yet  to  be  classified,  from  our  point  of  view  at  least, 
among  the  movements  which  we  are  here  describing,  is 
that  of  the  Franciscans.  By  general  consent  is  the 
story  of  the  good  St.  Francis  counted  as  the  most  beau- 
tiful in  the  records  of  Medievalism.  Born  in  wealth 


192  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

and  reared  in  luxury,  this  man  lived  a  life,  through  all 
his  early  years,  of  idleness  and  dissipation.  He  played 
day  and  night  with  the  sportive  youths  of  his  "  set  " ; 
marched  light-heartedly  to  battle  when  his  native  city 
was  at  war,  and  fought  valiantly  be  it  said ;  travelled 
on  pleasure  bent  wherever  fancy  might  lead  him.  Then 
came  the  sudden  emotional  upheaval  —  strangely 
enough  when  he  was  fighting  in  battle ;  the  long  struggle 
for  inward  peace,  and  at  last  the  surrendei-  to  the  in- 
sistent call  of  his  soul.  Stripping  himself  literally 
naked,  he  forsook  family,  friends,  everything  that  he 
had  known,  and  gave  himself  unreservedly  to  the  service 
of  the  poor,  the  diseased  and  the  fallen.  Then  came 
the  gathering  of  his  disciples,  the  building  of  his  mon- 
asteries, and  at  last  the  great  Order,  the  history  of 
which  marks  one  of  the  noblest  pages  in  all  the  long 
story  of  Christianity. 

The  work  of  St.  Francis,  in  its  essential  character, 
was  pre-eminently  emotional;  but  behind  it  was  at 
least  one  consistent  idea,  namely,  that  of  reproducing, 
in  one  of  the  most  corrupt  ages  of  European  history, 
the  exact  pattern  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  Francis  set 
himself  deliberately  to  the  task  of  living  as  he  believed 
that  Jesus  lived,  and  he  educated  all  his  personal  fol- 
lowers in  the  same  habit  of  life.  It  is  not  surprising, 
therefore,  to  learn  that,  in  his  personal  experience  at 
least,  he  was  a  scrupulous  non-resistant.  Very  touch- 
ing, as  an  illustration  of  his  practice,  is  the  story  of 
the  robbers  who  broke  into  the  monastery  one  night. 
A  monk,  who  was  a  doorkeeper  or  watchman,  set  upon 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE 

the  intruders  and  succeeded  in  driving  them  away. 
Awakened  by  the  disturbance,  St.  Francis  heard  the 
excited  tale  of  the  sentinel  and,  greatly  displeased  at 
his  violence,  despatched  him  down  the  road  as  fast  as 
his  legs  could  carry  him  to  overtake  the  robbers  and 
bring  them  back.  This  the  monk  somehow  or  other 
succeeded  in  doing;  whereupon  St.  Francis  received  the 
robbers  in  his  private  room,  spread  the  board  with  food 
and  drink  for  their  refreshment,  and  in  general  so  over- 
whelmed them  with  kindness  that  they  fell  on  their 
knees  in  repentance  and  begged  to  be  received  into  the 
fellowship  of  his  Order. 

That  this  story  is  historically  true,  may  well  be  re- 
garded as  doubtful;  but  that  it  is  spiritually  true  is 
beyond  question.  This  is  the  kind  of  thing  which  St. 
Francis  was  always  doing,  and  the  kind  of  thing  which 
he  was  always  commending  to  his  disciples.  These 
followers,  it  will  be  remembered,  he  divided  into  three 
groups.  Only  one  of  these  did  he  bind  to  the  literal 
performances  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  mindful  in  his  unfail- 
ing charity  that  "  the  flesh  is  weak."  But  to  this  he 
granted  no  qualifications,  and  therefore  among  other 
things,  pledged  them  to  non-resistance.  This  very 
flower  of  the  Franciscan  Order  was  forbidden  to  use 
force  for  any  purpose  or  under  any  conditions.  Going 
through  the  world  unarmed,  they  were  to  practise 
peace,  and  manifest  to  all  mankind  the  omnipotence  of 
love. 


194  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

IV 

Mention  of  the  Moravians  and  Franciscans  brings 
us  at  once  to  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  which  in- 
volves one  of  the  most  remarkable  phenomena  in  the 
history  of  non-resistance.  In  the  beginning,  nearly  all 
the  great  leaders  of  the  Protestant  revolt  were  out- 
and-out  non-resistants.  The  explanation  of  this  fact 
is  undoubtedly  to  be  found  in  the  further  fact  that  the 
whole  reforming  movement  of  this  age  had  its  origin  in 
a  rediscovery  of  the  Bible.  For  generations  the  scrip- 
tures had  been  safely  hidden  from  the  laity,  and  used 
by  the  clergy  only  under  the  most  severe  restrictions. 
Now,  under  the  impulse  of  the  quickening  spirit  of  the 
Renaissance,  came  a  new  interest  in  the  sacred  litera- 
tures of  Judaism  and  Christianity ;  and,  with  the  read- 
ing of  the  text  which  this  prompted,  a  new  understand- 
ing of  the  past  and  especially  of  the  teachings  of  the 
Nazarene.  In  the  case  of  the  reformers,  as  inevitably 
in  the  case  of  the  various  heretical  sects  which  we  have 
named,  this  meant  a  revival  of  primitive  Christianity, 
and  of  non-resistance  as  a  vital  part  of  primitive  Chris- 
tianity. In  its  incipiency,  Protestantism  was  as  truly 
a  non-resistant  movement  as  Waldensianism  or  Lol- 
lardry.  Martin  Luther,  for  example,  in  the  early  years 
of  his  revolt  against  Rome,  was  an  advocate  of  the 
pacifist  principle.  For  this  reason  in  particular,  was 
he  violently  assailed  by  Sir  Thomas  More,  who,  in 
spite  of  his  Utopia,  was  in  many  things  an  eminently 
practical  man.  Luther  valiantly  held  his  ground, 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      195 

however,  and,  at  the  crowning  moment  of  his  life,  in 
his  sublime  defiance  of  Charles  V  at  the  Diet  of  Worms, 
gave  to  the  world  one  of  the  bravest  examples  of  non- 
resistant  action  since  the  crucifixion  at  Golgotha. 
Later  on,  however,  when  Luther  entered  upon  his  long 
career  of  compromise,  he  found  it  convenient  to  rid 
himself  of  some  of  his  ideals,  and  non-resistance  was 
one  of  the  first  to  go.  Henceforth  he  was  glad  to  have 
the  Protestant  princes  serve  him  and  his  cause  at  any 
cost  of  suffering  and  bloodshed.  And  when  the 
wretched  peasants,  stirred  by  his  own  preachings  of 
liberty,  sought  release  from  the  intolerable  burdens  of 
their  lot,  he  not  only  urged  the  nobles  to  defend  them- 
selves against  attack,  but  actually  incited  them  to 
harry  and  slaughter  without  mercy  until  the  uprising 
was  suppressed.  The  most  regrettable  episode  in  the 
history  of  Protestantism,  in  many  ways,  is  Martin 
Luther's  conduct  in  relation  to  this  Peasants'  Revolt. 

John  Calvin  also  was  a  non-resistant  in  his  early 
years.  Thus  in  one  of  his  writings  we  find  the  state- 
ment, "  Trust  in  the  power  of  man  is  to  be  uncondi- 
tionally renounced;  if  there  is  need,  God  will  work  a 
miracle  to  save  his  church."  When,  however,  Calvin 
undertook  the  administration  of  the  city  of  Geneva  and 
found  himself  confronted  by  French  Catholics  to  the 
west,  German  Catholics  to  the  north,  Swiss  Catholics 
to  the  east  and  Italian  Catholics  to  the  south,  to  say 
nothing  of  varieties  of  hostile  Protestants  inside  and 
outside  of  his  seat,  he  found  it  convenient  to  change 
his  tactics.  From  this  time  on,  he  never  scrupled  to 


196  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

use  force,  not  only  for  defence,  but  for  the  active  fur- 
therance of  his  plans  of  government  and  social  control ; 
until  at  last,  like  Luther,  he  touched  the  lowest  depths 
of  infamy  in  his  burning  of  Michael  Servetus.  No 
better  illustration  of  what  I  have  called  "  the  logic  of 
force,"  can  anywhere  be  found,  than  in  the  case  of 
these  two  great  leaders  of  Protestantism,  who,  aban- 
doning their  non-resistant  ideals  for  expediential  mo- 
tives, were  led,  the  one  into  the  cruelties  of  the  Peas- 
ants' War  and  the  other  into  the  calculated  horror  of 
Servetus's  murder. 

One  man,  conspicuous  in  this  epoch,  stood  firm.  On 
his  dying  day,  as  in  his  early  youth,  the  great  scholar 
and  teacher,  Erasmus,  was  a  relentless  hater  of  war 
and  an  ardent  lover  of  peace.  Untiringly  by  voice 
and  pen,  did  he  condemn  appeal  to  the  sword;  and  in 
his  multitudinous  writings  he  has  left  to  us  some  of  the 
strongest  arguments  and  noblest  appeals  upon  this 
theme  in  the  literature  of  his  or  any  other  age.  His 
Plea  of  Reason,  Religion  and  Humanity  Against  War, 
with  its  eloquent  portrayal  of  the  horrors  of  war  and 
the  beauties  of  peace,  its  relentless  exposure  of  the 
perils  and  fallacies  of  force,  and  above  all  its  telling 
analysis  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  the  apostles, 
remains  to  this  day  the  classic  utterance  of  modern 
times  upon  the  peace  question.  Only  the  half-hearted- 
ness  of  our  modern  peace-advocates,  their  fear  of  a 
thoroughgoing  statement  of  their  own  gospel,  has  left 
this  matchless  treatise  unknown  to  the  people  of  our 
time. 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      197 


Aside  from  Erasmus,  the  Protestant  movement  has 
on  the  whole  little  to  offer  us  on  the  question  of  non- 
resistance,  until  we  come  to  the  seventeenth  century 
and  the  advent  of  the  Quakers.  Then  do  we  receive 
an  illustration  of  our  theme  which  constitutes,  as  it 
must  ever  constitute,  I  believe,  the  most  persuasive  of 
all  arguments  in  support  of  the  non-resistant  philoso- 
phy of  life. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  Quaker  movement 
had  its  beginning  at  a  time  when  England  was  being 
rent  and  torn  with  war  to  a  degree  unknown  since  the 
bloody  days  of  Lancaster  and  York.  It  was  when 
Charles  and  Cromwell,  in  other  words,  were  locked  in 
deadly  combat,  and  all  men  were  summoned  to  join  the 
ranks  either  of  Cavaliers  or  Roundheads,  that  George 
Fox  and  his  despised  Quakers  proclaimed  their  gospel 
of  peace  and  resolutely  refused  to  take  up  arms.  This 
was  most  decidedly  no  academic  or  theoretical  crusade. 
It  was  an  announcement  and  trial  of  the  non-resistant 
principle  at  a  time  which  was  least  propitious  and  con- 
sequently most  dangerous.  When  the  supreme  test  of 
his  ideals  came,  George  Fox  was  in  prison  under  the 
guard  of  the  soldiers  of  Cromwell.  Knowing  of  his 
great  influence  over  his  followers  and  desirous  there- 
fore of  securing  his  allegiance,  the  Puritan  officers  of- 
fered to  set  him  free  and  give  him  a  high  position  in 
the  army  of  the  Commonwealth,  if  he  would  publicly 
renounce  his  non-resistant  folly,  take  up  arms,  and  bid 


198  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

his  disciples  to  do  the  same.  The  temptation  was  a 
bitter  one.  Fox  was  weak  and  sick ;  his  prison  was  as 
dark  and  filthy  as  all  the  prisons  of  that  cruel  day ; 
chains  were  on  his  hands  and  feet ;  and  so  long  as  he 
was  thus  confined,  his  voice  was  stilled.  Never  for  a 
moment,  however,  did  he  falter;  on  the  contrary,  he 
hurled  the  challenge  of  the  officers  straight  in  their 
teeth  and  revealed  to  them  the  cause  of  all  the  woes  that 
contending  warriors  were  then  visiting  upon  England. 
"  I  told  them,"  he  records  in  his  Journal,  "  I  knew 
from  whence  all  wars  arose,  even  from  lust,  according 
to  James's  doctrine;  and  that  I  lived  in  the  virtue  of 
that  life  and  power  that  took  away  the  occasion  of  all 
wars  ...  I  told  them  I  was  come  into  the  covenant  of 
peace,  which  was  before  wars  and  strifes  were." 

What  was  done  by  Fox  on  this  occasion,  was  done 
with  equal  valour  on  later  occasions  of  greater  or  less 
agony,  by  his  gentle  followers  without  number.  The 
consistent  bravery  and  almost  miraculous  success  of  the 
Quakers  in  living  out  their  doctrine,  under  the  most 
trying  conditions,  stands  as  the  most  convincing  de- 
monstration available  of  the  entire  practicability  of 
non-resistance,  as  we  shall  point  out  at  length  in  the 
succeeding  chapter.  In  this  place,  we  would  speak  of 
the  Friends  only  as  exemplars  of  the  gospel,  and  ex- 
emplars of  altogether  extraordinary  courage  and  per- 
tinacity. 

Take,  for  example,  the  notable  case  of  Richard  Sel- 
lar,  a  fisherman  of  the  city  of  Scarborough,  England. 
In  1665,  this  man  was  impressed  on  an  English  man-o'- 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      199 

war,  in  the  good  old-fashioned  method  of  recruiting  in 
vogue  in  those  days.  When  he  was  seized  by  the  sailors 
he  refused  to  go  on  board ;  and  his  captors  were  obliged 
to  tie  him  up  in  a  bag  and  throw  him  on  to  the  ship 
with  a  derrick.  Once  aboard,  he  refused  to  obey 
orders  to  work  the  cannon,  load  the  guns,  handle  the 
ammunition,  and  the  rest.  Whereupon  he  was  thrown 
on  deck,  heavily  ironed;  and  kicked  about  like  a  foot- 
ball by  the  angry  sailors.  Why  the  man  was  not 
kicked  to  death,  remains  to  this  day  a  mystery.  Still 
obdurate,  in  spite  of  the  frightful  mauling  to  which  he 
was  subjected,  he  was  at  last  taken  before  the  captain 
of  the  ship,  and  put  on  trial  for  his  life.  Condemned 
of  course  on  his  own  confession,  he  was  sentenced  to 
suffer  the  hideous  penalty  of  being  put  into  a  large 
cask,  through  the  sides  of  which  huge  iron  nails  had 
been  driven  in  a  hundred  places,  and  rolled  about  the 
deck  until  he  was  dead.  Without  a  word  of  complaint, 
Sellar  made  ready  for  the  frightful  ordeal  and  calmly 
awaited  the  appearance  of  the  cask.  By  this  time, 
however,  the  inconceivable  patience  and  goodwill  of 
the  Quaker  fisherman  had  made  its  impression  not  only 
upon  the  officers,  but  even  upon  the  hardened  sailors. 
Somehow  or  other,  contrary  to  all  expectations,  they 
did  not  relish  the  idea  of  carrying  out  the  sentence  of 
the  court,  and  put  the  matter  off  from  day  to  day. 
Then  suddenly  a  ship  of  the  enemy  was  encountered, 
and  in  the  battle  which  ensued,  Sellar  made  himself  so 
useful  and  showed  himself  so  brave  in  caring  for  the 
wounded  under  fire,  that  after  the  fight  was  over,  the 


200  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

captain  took  him  to  the  nearest  port,  and,  releasing 
him,  gave  him  service-papers  which  protected  him  per- 
manently from  impressment. 

Here  is  only  one  of  the  Quakers  of  the  seventeenth 
and  eighteenth  centuries,  who  at  greatest  hazard  of 
comfort  and  safety,  triumphantly  vindicated  the  effi- 
cacy of  the  doctrine  which  they  had  espoused.  The 
instance  is  typical,  not  exceptional.  Nor  do  we  have 
to  return  to  these  distant  days  for  illustrations  from 
Quaker  history.  Our  own  Civil  War  furnishes  exam- 
ples of  striking  impressiveness.  Thus  when  the  South- 
ern States  found  themselves  hard  pressed  for  soldiers 
in  the  closing  days  of  the  Rebellion,  they  began  to  seize 
Quakers,  who  up  to  this  time  had  been  excused  from 
service,  and  order  them  to  the  front.  In  every  case, 
the  Confederate  authorities  were  met  with  a  point- 
blank  refusal  to  take  up  arms,  and  in  every  case  re- 
solved to  push  the  matter  to  the  limit.  Hundreds  of 
Quakers  were  tried  for  treason  before  drum-head  court- 
martials,  and  nearly  all  of  them  were  convicted  and 
condemned  to  be  shot.  In  many  cases,  they  were  actu- 
ally seized,  blindfolded,  and  stood  up  against  a  wall 
before  a  firing-squad.  But  not  a  single  recalcitrant, 
so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  ascertain,  was  put  to 
death.  Execution  was  psychologically  impossible  in 
the  face  of  such  patient  and  unprotesting  courage. 
Here  again,  as  always  with  the  Quakers,  we  have  ex- 
ample not  only  of  the  sublimity  but  also  of  the  prac- 
ticability of  non-resistance.  * 

'For  above,  see  Wilson's  Christ  and  War. 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      201 

VI 

Mention  of  the  Civil  War  brings  us  to  the  considera- 
tion of  that  remarkable  group  of  non-resistants  who 
appeared  in  New  England  in  the  first  half  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  The  years  from  1810  to  1850,  as  we 
know,  were  years  which  witnessed  a  marvellous  intel- 
lectual and  spiritual  awakening  throughout  the  north- 
ern states.  The  Transcendental  movement,  the  anti- 
slavery  movement,  the  women's  rights  movement,  the 
Unitarian  movement  in  theology,  the  socialist  or  com- 
munist movement  which  culminated  in  the  Brook  Farm 
and  Hopedale  experiments,  the  founding  of  the  Con- 
cord School  of  Philosophy,  the  rise  of  the  poetic  group 
in  Cambridge  and  Boston,  the  organisation  of  the 
Radical  Club,  the  educational  reforms  of  Horace 
Mann,  the  social  service  activities  of  Joseph  Tucker- 
man,  Dorothea  Dix  and  Dr.  Howe  —  all  these  were  so 
many  different  phases  of  the  most  potent  revival  of  the 
spirit  that  this  country  has  ever  seen.  And  one  among 
all  the  others  was  the  movement  of  non-resistance ! 

Conspicuous  among  the  teachers  and  exemplars  of 
this  ideal  in  the  early  days  was  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson, 
who,  in  his  Lecture  on  War,  first  delivered  in  1833,  set 
forth  the  clearest  and  most  exalted  exposition  of  the 
doctrine  to  be  found  in  American  literature.  His 
Journals,  so  recently  published  in  ten  elaborate  vol- 
umes, throw  interesting  side-lights  upon  his  thought  on 
this  subject  in  the  earlier  days  of  its  development. 
Under  date  of  October  3,  1831,  for  example,  he  writes, 


NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

"  I  wish  the  Christian  principle,  the  ultra  principle  of 
non-resistance  and  returning  good  for  evil,  might  once 
be  tried  fairly."  And  again,  under  date  of  October 
27,  1839,  he  says,  "  But  to  return  to  the  principle  of 
non-resistance  —  I  believe  that  that  principle  should 
be  trusted." 

The  mighty  change  in  Emerson's  thought  and  feel- 
ing, which  was  wrought  by  the  shocking  events  in  the 
last  half  of  the  fifties  and  the  climactic  events  of  the 
Civil  War,  did  not  leave  his  non-resistant  convictions 
unshaken.  On  the  contrary,  under  the  stress  and 
strain  of  this  stupendous  upheaval  in  American  life, 
they  tottered  and  tumbled  to  the  ground.  Thus,  for 
example,  we  read  that  in  1857,  in  the  days  of  the  Kan- 
sas-Nebraska struggle,  John  Brown  came  to  Concord 
and  delivered  a  lecture,  which  Emerson  heard.  A  note 
on  this  lecture  in  his  Journals,  reads  as  follows  — 
"  One  of  his  good  points  was,  the  folly  of  the  peace 
party  in  Kansas,  who  believed  that  their  strength  lay 
in  the  greatness  of  their  wrongs,  and  so  discounte- 
nanced resistance."  When,  a  few  months  later,  John 
Brown  and  his  gallant  band  went  down  to  Harper's 
Ferry  and  by  the  capture  of  the  United  States  Ar- 
senal, declared  open  war  against  the  Southern  slave- 
power,  we  find  Emerson  giving  a  lecture  in  Boston  and 
referring  to  Brown,  then  confined  in  the  Virginia  prison 
awaiting  trial,  as  "that  new  saint,  than  whom  none 
purer  or  more  brave  was  ever  led  by  love  of  men  into 
conflict  and  death, —  the  new  saint  awaiting  his  mar- 
tyrdom, and  who,  if  he  shall  suffer,  will  make  the  gal- 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      203 

lows  glorious  like  the  cross."  Later  on  came  the  out- 
break of  the  war.  In  the  early  part  of  1861,  accord- 
ing to  the  biography  by  Mr.  Cabot,  Emerson  visited 
the  Charlestown  Navy  Yard  and,  looking  about  at  the 
cannon  and  shells,  exclaimed  to  a  friend,  "  Ah,  some- 
times gunpowder  smells  good." 

It  is  obvious  from  these  facts  that  it  is  unfair  to 
cite  Emerson  as  a  champion  of  non-resistance.  He  re- 
pudiated his  faith  completely  and  finally  under  the 
impact  of  the  closing  years  of  the  struggle  against 
slavery.  Nevertheless,  if  the  Concord  philosopher 
cannot  be  called  non-resistant,  his  earlier  writings  can ! 
His  Lecture  on  War  is  the  classic  American  utterance 
on  this  theme. 

But  if  Emerson  finally  severed  his  connection  with 
the  non-resistant  movement  of  the  forties  and  fifties, 
others  remained  faithful  to  the  cherished  ideal,  even 
through  all  the  dreadful  years  of  this  saddest  epoch 
in  American  history.  Towering  head  and  shoulders 
above  the  rest  of  these  stalwarts  is  of  course  William 
Lloyd  Garrison,  who  fought  through  the  anti-slavery 
struggle  from  beginning  to  end,  a  leader  of  the  leaders 
in  that  great  battle  of  the  giants,  and  kept  his  non- 
resistant  principles  inviolate  to  the  close.  Never,  even 
in  the  days  when  feelings  ran  highest  and  crises  were 
most  acute,  did  he  yield  for  a  moment  to  the  easy 
temptations  of  violence.  When  the  fugitive  slave 
riots  burst  upon  Boston,  for  example,  he  steadfastly 
counselled  against  forcible  resistance  to  the  govern- 
ment officers.  Even  in  the  days  of  the  rendition  of 


204  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

Anthony  Burns,  when  mobs  were  racing  through  the 
streets  and  raging  about  the  court-house  and  prison, 
when  Parker  and  Phillips  and  Higginson  were  moving 
heaven  and  earth  to  secure  the  prisoner's  release,  Gar- 
rison, as  his  biographers  point  out,  stuck  to  his  print- 
ing office  and  calmly  set  his  type.  The  publication  of 
The  Liberator  on  time  was  more  important,  to  his 
mind,  than  the  liberation  of  any  escaped  slave !  Anc! 
when  John  Brown  made  his  attack  on  Harper's  Ferry, 
we  find  Garrison  writing,  "  Judging  John  Brown  by 
the  code  of  Bunker  Hill,  we  think  he  is  as  deserving  of 
eulogy  as  any  who  ever  wielded  sword  or  battle-axe  in 
the  cause  of  liberty.  But  we  do  not  or  cannot  ap- 
prove any  indulgence  of  the  war-spirit.  John  Brown 
has  perhaps  a  right  to  a  place  by  the  side  of  Moses, 
Joshua,  Gideon,  and  David,  but  he  is  not  on  the  same 
plane  with  Jesus,  Paul,  Peter,  and  John." 

Side  by  side  with  Garrison,  must  be  named  John 
Greenleaf  Whittier.  Serving  as  the  poet  of  the  move- 
ment of  which  Garrison  was  the  prophet  and  organiser, 
Whittier,  like  Garrison,  refused  to  use  any  weapons 
but  the  reasoning  mind  and  the  impassioned  heart. 
His  comment  on  the  John  Brown  exploit,  in  a  letter  to 
his  non-resistant  friend,  Lydia  Maria  Child,  under  date 
of  October  21,  1859,  tells  the  whole  story  of  his  atti- 
tude. Referring  to  the  "  brave  but  sadly  misguided 
Captain  Brown,"  he  continues,  "We  feel  deeply  (who 
does  not?)  for  the  noble-hearted,  self-sacrificing  old 
man.  But  as  friends  of  peace,  as  well  as  believers  in 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  we  dare  not  lend  any  coun- 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      205 

tenance  to  such  attempts  as  that  at  Harper's  Ferry. 
.  .  .  God  is  now  putting  our  non-resistant  principles 
to  the  test.  I  hope  we  shall  not  give  the  lie  to  our 
professions.  I  quite  agree  with  thee  that  we  must 
judge  of  Brown  by  his  standards;  but  at  the  same  time 
we  must  be  true  to  our  settled  convictions,  and  to  the 
duty  we  owe  to  humanity." 

vn 

Along  with  the  Quakers  and  the  Transcendentalists 
as  non-resistants  must  be  named  the  socialists.  That 
these  international  labourites  are  non-resistants  has 
never  been  asserted,  so  far  as  I  know ;  and  it  may  seem 
strange  to  make  this  assertion  at  just  this  time  when 
the  socialists  of  Europe  are  eagerly  supporting  the 
Great  War.  But  that  the  socialists,  when  they  are 
faithful,  are  pacifists  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word, 
non-resistants  in  the  sense  of  the  word  here  employed 
in  our  discussion,  is  to  my  mind  beyond  question.  For 
fifty  years  they  have  steadfastly  resisted  every  effort 
to  introduce  violence  as  a  weapon  in  their  arsenal  of 
revolt.  Bakounin  and  his  terrorists  were  driven  from 
the  International  at  what  threatened  to  be  the  cost  of 
the  life  of  the  movement.  Sorel  and  his  syndicalists 
have  fought  a  gallant  but  losing  fight  for  recognition. 
Haywood  and  his  I.  W.  W.  have  been  forced  to  conduct 
their  propaganda  in  America  altogether  outside  of  the 
socialist  ranks.  Again  and  again,  as  the  ruthless 
power  of  capitalism,  in  defiance  of  every  statute  of  law 
and  every  precept  of  morality,  has  abused  and  tor- 


206  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

tured  them,  have  the  socialists  been  tempted  to  take 
up  the  sword  in  self-defence.  But  with  a  wisdom  which 
might  well  be  the  model  of  priests  of  the  church  and 
ministers  of  the  state,  they  have  refrained.  Great  is 
this  example !  In  spite  of  the  War  of  the  Nations, 
which  swept  socialists  away  only  as  it  swept  away  Jews, 
Christians,  and  professional  pacifists,  these  socialists 
must  be  described  as  the  supreme  exemplars  in  our 
time  of  the  sublimity  and  efficacy  alike  of  the  non-re- 
sistant ideal. 

VIII 

It  remains  for  us  to  name  but  one  other  modern  ex- 
emplar of  non-resistance  —  and  this  the  colossal  moral 
giant,  Leo  Tolstoi.  To  do  justice  to  this  mighty  man 
in  this  place  is  quite  impossible,  nor  is  it  necessary,  for 
the  story  of  his  life  and  the  record  of  his  teachings 
have  already  found  their  way  into  the  treasure-houses 
of  the  race.  Already  before  his  body  has  crumbled  to 
dust,  the  great  Russian  has  become  enrolled  among  the 
immortals.  Suffice  it  to  point  out  that  Tolstoi,  like 
St.  Francis,  came  to  the  discovery  of  his  convictions 
after  years  of  dissipation  and  of  valiant  service  in 
bloody  wars.  Sebastopol  and  War  and  Peace  stand  as 
permanent  witnesses  of  what  Count  Tolstoi  knew  of  war 
and  warriors.  Then  came  his  spiritual  awakening,  de- 
scribed in  his  Confessions  —  his  discovery  of  primitive 
Christianity  and  the  religion  of  Jesus,  narrated  at 
great  length  in  his  My  Religion  and  The  Gospel  in  Brief, 
and  finally  those  heroic  days  of  abnegation  and 


EXEMPLARS  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      207 

steadfast  witness  against  wrong,  which  lifted  him  in 
moral  stature  far  above  his  contemporaries  in  every 
land  until,  for  a  period  of  a  generation,  "  he  bestrode 
the  world  like  a  Colossus."  Living  in  the  most  bar- 
baric land  of  Christendom,  Tolstoi  was  the  most  con- 
sistent Christian  of  modern  times.  As  a  non-resistant, 
he  can  be  compared  to  nobody  who  has  lived  and  taught 
since  the  earliest  days  of  primitive  Christianity.  He 
converted  few  to  his  viewpoint ;  and  in  the  light  of 
present  events,  it  may  well  seem  as  though  he  lived  in 
vain.  But  his  memory,  like  a  great  sun  shining  upon 
wintry  snows,  abides,  and  will  some  day  turn  the  world 
to  fragrance  and  to  beauty. 

rx 

Here  are  the  more  conspicuous  non-resistants  of 
modern  times.  They  are  not  many.  But  the  impor- 
tant fact  to  note  is,  that  never  at  any  time  since  Jesus 
perished  upon  Calvary,  have  these  champions  of  good- 
will failed  to  appear  and  "  bear  witness  to  the  truth." 
The  teachings  of  the  Master  have  been  lost,  forgotten, 
perverted,  flouted;  superstition  and  barbarism  have 
overwhelmed  the  earth  like  the  Darkness  of  which  Lord 
Byron  sang  the  dreadful  song;  wars  have  devastated 
the  earth  a  thousand  times,  and  rumours  of  wars  for- 
ever beset  with  terror  the  hearts  of  men.  But  still  has 
the  torch  been  passed  from  hand  to  hand  of  the  faith- 
ful, and  shone  like  a  beacon  in  the  night. 

And  significant  is  it  to  observe  that,  in  this  age  of 
ours,  the  darkest  that  the  world  has  known  since  that 


208  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

which  looked  upon  the  decline  and  fall  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  the  non-resistant  principle  is  undergoing  such 
a  renaissance  as  it  has  not  seen  since  the  advent  of  the 
Quakers,  two  centuries  and  a  half  ago.  The  light  of 
the  spirit  cannot  be  quenched!  The  voice  of  truth 
cannot  be  silenced!  God  reigns,  and  Christ  still  walks 
the  earth! 

"  O  pure  Reformers !  not  in  vain 

Your  trust  in  human  kind; 
The  good  which  bloodshed  could  not  gain, 
Your  peaceful  zeal  shall  find. 

"  The  truths  ye  urge  are  borne  abroad, 

By  every  wind  and  tide; 
The  voice  of  nature  and  of  God 
Speaks  out  upon  your  side. 

"  The  weapons  which  your  hands  have  found 

Are  those  which  Heaven  hath  wrought, 
Light,  Truth,  and  Love;  your  battle-ground 
The  free,  broad  fields  of  Thought. 

"  Oh,  may  no  selfisn  purpose  break 

The  beauty  of  your  plan, 
No  lie  from  throne  or  altar  shake 
Your  steady  faith  in  Man !  "  1 

i  John  Greenleaf  Whittier. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  PRACTICABILITY  OF 
NON-RESISTANCE 


"'Resist  not  evil'  means  never  resist,  never  oppose  violence; 
or,  in  other  words,  never  do  anything  Contrary  to  the  law  of 
love.  .  .  .  Christ  said  this  in  words  so  clear  and  simple  that  it 
would  be  impossible  to  express  the  idea  more  clearly.  .  .  .  Nowhere 
did  he  say  that  obedience  would  be  difficult;  on  the  contrary,  he 
said,  '  My  yoke  is  easy  and  my  burden  is  light '.  .  .  .  How  was 
it,  then,  that  believing  or  trying  to  believe  that  he  who  said  this 
was  God,  I  still  maintained  that  it  is  beyond  my  power  to  obey? 
...  As  I  reviewed  my  past  history,  I  perceived  that  I  had  drunk 
in  this  idea  (of  impracticability)  with  my  mother's  milk,  .  .  .  and 
all  my  after  life  had  only  confirmed  me  in  this  strange  error.  .  .  . 
From  infancy  to  manhood,  I  learned  to  venerate  what  was  in 
direct  contradiction  to  Christ's  law.  .  .  .  The  whole  organisation  of 
my  life  agreed  in  calling  Christ's  teaching  impracticable  and  vi- 
sionary, and  by  words  and  deeds  taught  what  was  opposed  to  it. 
Thus  my  error  rose.  .  .  .  But  now  I  understand.  .  .  .  This  com- 
mandment is  like  a  key  which  opens  everything,  but  only  when  it 
is  thrust  into  the  lock." — Leo  Tolstoi,  in  My  Religion. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE    PRACTICABILITY    OF    NON-RESISTANCE 

IT  may  be  taken  for  granted,  at  this  point  in  our  argu- 
ment, that  we  have  some  understanding  of  the  meaning 
of  non-resistance,  in  its  positive  as  well  as  negative 
aspects,  and  some  knowledge  as  to  how  it  has  been  in- 
terpreted and  practised  by  great  souls  of  ancient  and 
modern  times.  The  very  elaboration  of  our  study  of 
these  phases  of  the  subject,  however,  has  perhaps  only 
aggravated  our  desire  to  get  at  close  grips  with  the 
question  as  to  whether  or  not  non-resistance  is  prac- 
ticable. Just  here,  after  all,  in  this  matter  of  work- 
ableness, is  the  crux  of  our  whole  problem.  Every- 
body is  ready  to  admit  the  beauty  of  the  conception  of 
non-resistance  as  a  conception ;  but  is  anybody  pre- 
pared to  justify  it  as  a  practical  way  of  life?  The 
"  tabernacle "  of  theory  is  superb ;  but  is  there  any 
way  of  bringing  this  "  tabernacle  "  down  out  of  heaven 
and  placing  it  on  earthly  foundations?  We  call  it  a 
way  of  life,  but  is  it  anything  more,  in  the  last  analysis, 
than  a  way  of  death?  Is  not  the  consistent  non-re- 
sistant a  suicide? 


It  is  obvious  that  the  discussion  of  this  question  can- 
not longer  be  avoided.     But  it  must  also  be  admitted, 

211 


212  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

as  we  have  before  suggested,1  that  such  discussion  can 
only  be  entered  into  with  reluctance.  For  is  there  not 
something  essentially  unworthy,  indeed  almost  degrad- 
ing, in  complicating  the  discussion  of  a  great  concep- 
tion of  the  spirit  with  inquiry  as  to  its  efficacy  in  the 
outer  world  of  practical  affairs?  It  would  seem  as 
though  it  were  the  business  of  those  who  profess  them- 
selves to  be  spiritual  beings,  especially  of  those  who 
claim  allegiance  to  such  out-and-out  idealists  as  Isaiah 
or  Jesus,  to  consider  primarily  not  what  is  practicable 
but  what  is  right,  and  having  found  the  right,  to  serve 
it  with  all  their  "  mind  and  heart  and  soul  and 
strength,"  whether  it  be  practicable  or  not.  It  would 
seem  as  though  it  were  the  unescapable  duty  of  those 
who  worship  God  and  pray  to  God  for  the  coming  of 
his  Kingdom,  to  try  to  learn  the  will  of  God  and  then 
to  try  to  do  this  will  whether  it  be  easy  or  be  hard. 
To  consider  results,  to  ponder  expediences,  is  very  like 
surrendering  the  unique  privilege  of  the  soul  to  live  in 
a  higher  realm  than  that  of  earth.  Whether  true  or 
not,  it  has  the  appearance  at  least  of  reversing  the 
charge  of  Jesus  that  we  "  fear  not  them  which  kill  the 
body  .  .  .  but  rather  him  which  is  able  to  destroy 
both  soul  and  body,"  by  making  the  preservation  of 
the  body  and  not  the  salvation  of  the  soul  our  chief 
concern. 

Leo  Tolstoi,  it  has  always  seemed  to  me,  spoke  the 
perfect  word  upon  this  subject  in  the  immortal  letter 
addressed  to  the  people  of  the  Czar  on  the  occasion  of 

i  See  above,  Chapter  I,  pages  33-36. 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      213 

the  Russio-Japanese  War,  which  was  published  in  the 
London  Times  under  the  title  of  Bethink  Yourselves. 
Appealing  for  non-resistance  at  the  moment  when  the 
enemies  of  the  Empire  were  thundering  at  the  portals 
of  Manchuria,  Tolstoi  takes  up  the  familiar  charge 
that  his  doctrine  is  impracticable  —  that,  if  the  people 
of  Russia  were  to  respond  to  his  summons  to  lay  down 
arms,  the  country  would  straightway  be  over-run  by 
the  Japanese  and  in  due  course  added  to  the  Mikado's 
dominions.  "  To  this  question,"  answers  Tolstoi,  with 
the  unshakable  conviction  of  the  true  prophet  of  right- 
eousness, "  there  can  be  no  other  answer  than  this  — 
that  whatever  be  the  circumstances,  I  cannot  act  other- 
wise than  as  God  demands  of  me.  What  will  happen 
immediately  or  soon  from  my  ceasing  to  do  that  which 
is  contrary  to  the  will  of  God,  I  do  not  and  cannot 
know  —  but  I  believe  that,  from  the  fulfilment  of  the 
will  of  God,  there  can  follow  nothing  but  that  which  is 
good  for  me  and  for  all  men."  Then,  mounting  to  a 
still  higher  plane,  he  continues,  "  The  religious  man  is 
guided  in  his  activity  not  by  the  presumed  consequences 
of  his  action,  but  by  the  consciousness  of  the  destina- 
tion of  his  life.  .  .  .  For  him  there  is  no  question  as 
to  whether  many  or  few  men  act  as  he  does,  or  of  what 
may  happen  if  he  does  that  which  he  should  do.  He 
knows  that  besides  life  and  death  nothing  can  happen, 
and  that  life  and  death  are  in  the  hands  of  God  whom 
he  obeys."  Therefore  "  the  religious  man  acts  thus 
and  not  otherwise,  not  because  he  desires  to  act  thus, 
nor  because  it  is  advantageous  to  himself  or  to  other 


214  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

men,  but  because,  believing  that  his  life  is  in  the  hands 
of  God,  he  cannot  act  otherwise." 

Here,  as  applied  to  the  particular  question  of  war 
and  peace,  is  the  rule  of  life  as  laid  down  and  prac- 
tised by  every  true  prophet  of  the  soul  who  has  ever 
lived.  Here  is  the  faith  of  Buddha  as  he  left  his 
father's  court  and  entered  the  paths  of  beggary,  of 
Isaiah  as  he  fronted  the  cowardice  of  Ahaz  and  Heze- 
kiah,  of  Jesus  as  he  "  set  his  face  steadfastly  toward 
Jerusalem,"  of  Justin  Martyr  as  he  answered  Celsus's 
charge  of  treason,  of  Savonarola  as  he  indicted  Pope 
Alexander  and  Prince  Lorenzo,  of  Luther  as  he  defied 
Charles  V  with  the  immortal  declaration  "  God  help 
me  —  I  cannot  do  other,"  of  every  hero  who  has  pre- 
ferred the  approval  of  his  conscience  to  the  applause 
of  the  multitudes,  the  sanctity  of  his  spirit  to  the  uses 
of  the  world.  On  the  low  levels  of  ignoble  strife  for 
profit,  security,  success,  the  air  is  heavy  with  the  poi- 
sonous fogs  of  expediency.  But  there  are  heights  to 
which  have  climbed  the  strong  and  brave,  where  ideas 
practical  and  impractical  are  dispersed  like  mists  be- 
fore the  sun,  and  we  breathe  the  tonic  air  of  pure 
idealism.  Or  rather,  shall  we  not  say  that,  on  these 
heights,  the  mists  are  absorbed  in  the  sunlight,  the 
practical  merged  with  the  ideal,  and  the  vision  of  what 
we  may  call  the  higher  expediency  thereby  disclosed? 
Rising  to  these  spiritual  summits,  in  other  words,  we 
get  the  far  view  of  the  horizon  instead  of  the  near  view 
of  rocky  barriers.  We  behold  the  vast  reaches  of  eter- 
nity instead  of  the  narrow  confines  of  time.  And  lo, 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      215 

there  dawns  upon  our  sight  the  abiding  truth  that  the 
ideal,  after  all,  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  that 
which  is  practicable  in  the  long  run ! 

For  what  great  truth  was  ever  practicable  in  the 
days  when  it  was  first  discovered  and  proclaimed? 
How  practicable  was  the  religion  of  Jesus,  when  the 
Nazarene  proclaimed  it  to  the  world  of  Caiaphas  and 
Pilate  —  how  practicable  even  to-day?  How  prac-< 
ticable  was  the  gospel  of  democracy  when  the  first  man, 
whoever  he  was,  stood  up  among  the  brutish  serfs  of 
his  day  and  generation  and  declared  that  governments 
"  derive  their  just  powers  "  not  from  the  will  of  kings 
or  the  whims  of  aristocracies  but  "  from  the  consent 
of  the  governed"?  How  practicable  was  the  doctrine 
of  women's  rights  when  first  acclaimed  by  Mary  Woll- 
stonecraft  in  her  Vindication  of  the  Rights  of  Woman, 
or  even  later  in  this  country  by  Lucy  Stone  and  Susan 
B.  Anthony?  How  practicable  was  the  movement  for 
the  emancipation  of  the  three  million  ignorant  slaves  of 
the  South,  when  Garrison  set  up  his  printing-press  in 
Boston,  or  even  later  when  Lincoln  wrote  his  immortal 
proclamation?  Every  great  endeavour  of  the  spirit, 
just  because  it  is  an  endeavour  of  the  spirit,  is  abso- 
lutely impracticable  at  the  outset.  Indeed,  nothing  at 
all  is  practicable,  until  it  is  made  so  by  the  will  of 
dauntless  men.  And  those  men  of  the  past  whom  we 
most  truly  reverence  and  deeply  love  at  the  present 
moment  are  none  other  than  those  who,  bearing  all 
things,  believing  all  things,  hoping  all  things,  enduring 
all  things,  working  steadfastly  in  face  of  opposition, 


216  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

remaining  patient  under  ridicule  and  denunciation,  dy- 
ing that  the  cause  may  live,  have  made  the  impracti- 
cable to  be  practicable,  and  the  ideal  to  be  real.  "  I 
did  not  know  that  it  could  not  be  done,"  said  one  of 
these  spiritual  creators,  "  so  I  went  ahead  and  did  it." 
All  of  which  has  its  very  immediate  application  to 
our  problem  of  non-resistance !  Some  time  this  gospel, 
so  impracticable  at  the  present  time,  is  going  to  be 
made  practicable  by  the  will  of  humankind.  Some  time 
it  is  going  to  become  as  much  of  a  social  commonplace 
as  political  democracy,  or  Negro  freedom.  And  it  is 
for  those  of  us  who  are  convinced  of  its  validity,  to 
begin  right  here  and  now  the  work  of  establishing  its 
efficacy  as  a  practical  philosophy  of  life.  This  work 
will  not  be  easy  and  pleasant.  We  shall  be  denounced 
as  fools,  cowards,  and  perhaps  traitors.  Position,  influ- 
ence, reputation  may  have  to  be  sacrificed  without  other 
recompense  than  that  of  inward  peace.  If  war  swept 
down  upon  America  as  upon  Russia  in  Manchuria, 
and  we  remained  faithful  as  did  Leo  Tolstoi,  we  might 
possibly  have  to  suffer  loss  of  freedom,  of  property, 
and  in  the  last  emergency,  of  life  itself.  But  this 
principle  is  no  different  from  any  other,  and  cannot  be 
established  therefore  in  any  other  way  than  by  the 
fearless  witness  and  willing  suffering  of  those  who  be- 
lieve. As  true  for  peace  as  for  war,  is  the  immortal 
Quatrain  of  Emerson  — 

"  Though  love  repine  and  reason  chafe, 

There  comes  a  voice  without  reply, 
'Tis  man's  perdition  to  be  safe, 
When  for  the  truth  he  ought  to  die.* 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      217 

ii 

But  is  non-resistance  impracticable  at  the  present 
time?  So  we  have  admitted,  momentarily,  for  the 
sake  of  our  argument  on  behalf  of  pure  idealism;  and 
so  unquestionably  would  the  overwhelming  majority  of 
men  assert  at  the  present  time !  Already  have  we  sum- 
marised the  dubious  questions  which  throng  upon  the 
mind  the  instant  that  the  challenge  of  non-resistance 
is  encountered.  But  are  these  questions  valid?  Is 
our  admission  even  momentarily  sound?  Is  the  major- 
ity opinion  upon  this  matter  anything  more  than  the 
evidence  of  prevailing  ignorance  and  instinctive  fear? 
Is  not  the  practicability  of  non-resistance  already 
proved,  and  our  case  therefore  already  established? 

This  is  the  question  now  before  us.  And  no  sooner 
do  we  enter  upon  its  consideration,  than  we  find  our- 
selves treading  familiar  ground.  Already  in  our  study 
of  what  we  called  "  the  fallacies  of  force,"  1  have  we 
seen  how  impracticable  is  the  use  of  force  in  all  human 
relationships,  and  how  the  whole  story  of  the  progress 
of  humanity  in  this  regard  is  the  story  of  the  gradual 
abandonment  of  force  and  the  search  for  some  wiser 
and  more  gentle  method  of  procedure.  In  the  rela- 
tions of  husband  and  wife,  of  parent  and  child,  of  em- 
ployer and  employe,  of  warden  and  convict,  of  king 
and  subject  —  in  all  of  these  relations,  we  have  found 
that  man  has  long  since  become  convinced  of  the  futil- 
ity of  force  as  a  law  of  life,  and  has  been  ceaselessly 

i  See  Chapter  III,  pages  82-97. 


218  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

struggling  to  discover  and  to  put  into  practice  some 
higher  and  safer  law. 

At  the  time  that  we  were  considering  this  matter,  we 
were  interested  in  the  negative  rather  than  the  positive 
aspects  of  the  question.  We  were  interested  primarily 
in  what  man  was  finding  to  be  a  failure  —  namely, 
force  —  and  not  what  he  was  trying  to  establish  as  a 
successful  substitute  for  this  failure.  Now,  however, 
that  we  have  considered  the  meaning  of  non-resistance 
and  observed  some  of  the  ancient  and  modern  exem- 
plars of  non-resistance,  it  is  all  at  once  become  evident 
that  here  is  the  new  thing  which,  little  by  little,  with 
much  hesitation  and  many  fears,  the  human  race  is 
learning  to  use  in  place  of  the  old,  discredited,  falla- 
cious resort  to  violence.  For  centuries  our  various 
human  relationships  have  been  in  process  of  shifting 
from  the  basis  of  force  to  the  basis  of  non-resistance ! 

And  what  do  these  centuries  of  trial  teach  us  but  the 
unfailing  practicability  of  the  non-resistant  principle? 
Enter  any  home  where  the  husband  holds  the  wife  to 
himself  by  the  compulsion  not  of  bonds  but  of  love ;  go 
into  any  household  where  corporal  punishment  is  un- 
known, discipline  precise,  and  obedience  absolute  — 
where  the  children  rush  gladly  into  the  father's  arms, 
bring  to  him  their  secrets,  confess  to  him  their  errors, 
seek  his  counsel,  accept  his  reproof,  and  imitate  his 
example ;  search  the  industrial  field  in  vain  for  the 
chain  and  the  whip  of  old-time  slavery,  and  observe  in 
their  places  the  free  comradeship  of  common  labourers 
in  a  common  task  of  co-operative  achievement ;  go  to 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      219 

Oregon,  and  see  unguarded  convicts  working  on  the 
public  highways  and  in  the  state  forests  —  or  to  Colo- 
rado, and  see  Judge  Lindsey  handling  his  juvenile  de- 
linquents without  a  suggestion  of  compulsion  —  or  to 
Sing  Sing,  and  see  a  prison  run  by  convicts  for  the 
benefit  of  convicts  instead  of  by  guards  for  the  benefit 
of  guards ;  live  in  the  United  States,  where  soldiers  are 
almost  never  seen,  where  a  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  however  unpopular,  is  enforced  by  popular  con- 
sent and  not  by  official  compulsion,  where  the  govern- 
ment, without  arms,  enjoys  a  security  which  is  the 
despair  of  Czars  and  Sultans ;  —  and  here,  in  all  these 
cases,  do  you  find  demonstrations  of  the  perfect  practi- 
cability of  non-resistance.  In  all  of  these  relationships 
of  life  —  domestic,  industrial,  political,  social  —  non- 
resistance  is  being  tried  to  some  extent  or  other.  And 
just  to  the  extent  that  the  trial  is  complete,  in  courage 
and  good  faith,  it  tends  to  work;  and  just  to  the  ex- 
tent that  the  trial  falls  short  of  completeness,  from 
fear  or  scepticism,  it  tends  to  fail.  Non-resistance  — 
in  other  words,  moral  compulsion  or  moral  suasion  — 
is  itself  the  only  force  that  is  practicable.  Love  is 
stronger  than  any  chain  that  has  ever  been  forged  by 
the  hand  of  man.  Righteousness,  honour,  goodwill, 
are  bulwarks  mightier  than  any  fortresses  that  have 
ever  been  builded  of  rock  or  steel.  The  Psalmist  is 
right  — "  God  is  our  refuge  and  strength  " ;  when  we 
put  our  trust  in  him  we  need  not  fear,  for  he  "  shall 
not  be  moved,  though  the  earth  be  removed  and  though 
the  mountains  be  carried  into  the  midst  of  the  sea." 


220  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

ra 

All  this  is  evident.  Denial  of  the  successful  substi- 
tution of  love  for  force  in  various  fields  of  human  rela- 
tionships is  no  longer  possible  at  this  late  day.  And 
yet,  this  demonstration  does  not  satisfactorily  answer 
our  inquiry,  as  to  the  practicability  of  non-resistance. 
For  this  question,  in  the  last  analysis,  after  all,  con- 
cerns itself  not  so  much  with  the  slow  substitution  of 
love  for  force,  as  with  the  immediate  abandonment  of 
force  altogether ;  and  an  abandonment  not  merely  in 
the  even  flow  of  every-day  affairs,  but  in  the  violent 
upheavals  of  the  great  crises  of  life  and  death.  When 
we  are  dubious  about  the  feasibility  of  non-resistance, 
we  have  in  mind  not  the  children  in  the  home  or  the 
labourers  in  the  factory  or  even  the  convicts  in  the 
prison,  but  those  ultimate  questions  of  the  security  of 
property  and  life  which  constitute  the  final  test  of  any 
theory  of  individual  conduct  and  social  order.  Is  it 
possible  to  walk  the  crowded  ways  of  life,  go  to  all 
kinds  of  hidden  places,  associate  with  all  sorts  and  con- 
ditions of  men,  and  never  lift  up  the  hand  of  violence 
or  resort  to  the  protection  of  the  officers  of  the  law? 
What  are  you  going  to  do  if  an  enemy  insults  you  or 
libels  your  reputation?  How  are  you  going  to  pro- 
tect your  home  from  burglary  and  your  property  from 
theft?  What  is  your  method  of  procedure  if  a  high- 
wayman holds  you  up  on  a  dark  street,  or  a  ruffian  as- 
saults your  wife,  or  a  brute  undertakes  to  beat  to 
death  a  little  child?  Or  what  would  you  recommend 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      221 

in  such  a  recrudescence  of  barbarism  as  is  now  afflict- 
ing more  than  half  the  world?  Would  non-resistance 
avail  anything  in  Serbia,  Bulgaria,  or  Poland  —  or 
indeed  anywhere  in  Europe  under  such  conditions  as 
are  now  prevailing?  Let  us  talk  of  specific  things  — 
grapple  with  particular  situations !  Let  us  get  away 
from  the  consideration  of  abstract  ideals  on  the  one 
hand,  and  vague  surveys  of  the  course  of  human  prog- 
ress on  the  other !  Let  us  face  this  question  of  practi- 
cability in  its  naked  reality!  What  are  you  going  to 
do  when  you  face  the  loaded  pistol  of  a  murderer,  or 
witness  the  rape  of  your  wife,  or  see  your  native  soil 
invaded  by  the  armed  hosts  of  a  revengeful  and  savage 
foe?  "That,"  as  Hamlet  says,  "is  the  question." 

At  first  sight,  I  must  admit,  I  am  tempted  to  be  im- 
patient at  this  attempt  to  shift  our  basis  of  discussion 
from  the  broad  grounds  of  social  law  to  the  very  nar- 
row ground  of  individual  accident.  I  am  reminded  of 
the  shrewd  reference  of  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson,  in  his 
discussion  of  non-resistance,  to  extravagant  dilemmas 
of  this  kind,  which  he  compares  to  "  those  problems  in 
arithmetic  which  in  long  winter  evenings  the  rustics 
try  the  hardness  of  their  heads  in  ciphering  out."  It 
seems  ridiculous  to  the  last  degree  that  the  acceptance 
of  a  great  ideal  of  human  conduct  should  be  made  thus 
conditional  upon  the  solution  of  moral  riddles.  And 
yet,  after  all,  such  riddles  as  these  cannot,  in  fairness, 
be  evaded.  For  if  the  gospel  of  non-resistance  cannot 
prove  itself  to  be  practicable  in  just  such  contingencies 
as  these  which  have  been  enumerated,  then  it  can  avail 


222  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

us  very  little.  A  boat  must  float  not  only  in  still 
waters  but  in  stormy  Seas.  An  automobile  must  move 
ahead  not  only  on  smooth  roads  but  up  steep  hills  and 
through  deep  mires.  An  aeroplane,  if  it  ever  is  to  be 
generally  serviceable,  must  fly  not  only  in  quiet  breezes 
but  in  sudden  gales.  And  so  with  non-resistance.  It 
must  work  when  it  is  most  necessary  that  it  should 
work.  It  is  when  life  and  death  are  in  the  balance  that 
it  must  not  fail.  Hence  the  cogency  to  our  argument 
of  just  such  riddles  as  these  which  have  been  proposed, 
and  the  fairness  of  the  insistence  that  they  be  an- 
swered. 

IV 

One  thing  still  remains,  however,  to  be  pointed  out, 
before  we  proceed  to  the  direct  consideration  of  our 
problem.  I  refer  to  the  fact  that,  in  order  to  establish 
what  we  are  calling  the  practicability  of  non-resist- 
ance, it  is  by  no  means  obligatory  upon  us  to  prove 
that  this  principle  will  infallibly  work  in  each  and 
every  relation  of  life  —  that  it  will  never  fail  under 
any  circumstances.  What  we  are  trying  to  do  here, 
after  all,  is  not  to  establish  an  invariable  law  of  action, 
but  to  offer  a  reasonably  efficacious  substitute  for  the 
more  or  less  futile  method  of  force.  And  in  order  to 
do  this,  the  most  that  we  have  to  do,  from  the  stand- 
point of  strict  logic  at  least,  is  to  demonstrate  that 
one  is  likely  to  win  out  more  frequently  and  more  ef- 
fectively by  appeal  to  non-resistance  than  by  resort 
to  force.  For  how  often  does  force  insure  to  us  secur- 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      223 

ity  under  such  conditions  as  are  laid  down  in  the  riddles 
outlined  just  above?  How  likely  am  I  to  get  the  bet- 
ter of  the  highwayman,  who  suddenly  bars  my  road 
with  a  levelled  revolver,  and  thus  to  protect  my  purse 
from  capture  and  my  body  from  injury,  by  attacking 
my  assailant  with  bare  hands?  What  is  the  chance  of 
my  being  able  to  protect  my  wife  from  rape  or  a  little 
child  from  a  beating,  if  I  precipitate  a  fight  with  the 
consummate  brute  who  can  alone  undertake  the  doing 
of  such  hideous  offence?  What  did  it  avail  Belgium 
to  marshal  her  armies  and  hold  her  forts  against  the 
irresistible  advance  of  the  German  legions?  We  are 
speaking,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  not  of  honour  but  of 
security  —  not  of  what  is  morally  creditable,  perhaps, 
but  of  what  is  practically  efficacious.  And  from  this 
standpoint  is  it  not  easily  apparent  that  in  each  and 
every  case  the  appeal  to  force  is  the  direct  choice  of 
injury  and  destruction?  Physical  resistance  under 
such  circumstances,  as  actually  in  the  case  of  Belgium, 
is  suicidal.  Non-resistance  cannot  be  less  secure;  it 
may  very  easily  be  more  secure.  It  would  seem,  after 
all,  in  this  matter  of  alternatives,  that  our  "  yoke  " 
of  preference  is  "  easy  "  and  our  "  burden  "  of  proof 
is  "  light." 

Not  so,  however,  says  the  champion  of  force !  Re- 
sistance to  the  highwayman  or  the  invading  army  may 
be  desperate,  as  you  say ;  force  may  fail  far  more  often 
than  it  succeeds,  as  you  seem  to  imply.  But  it  is  at 
least  more  practicable,  even  under  such  hazardous  cir- 
cumstances, than  non-resistance ;  for  in  the  one  case, 


224,  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

jou  at  least  do,  or  attempt  to  do,  something,  on  behalf 
of  your  purse,  or  your  wife,  or  your  child,  whereas  in 
the  other  case,  you  do  not  do,  or  attempt  to  do,  an}'- 
thing  at  all.  You  simply  hold  up  your  hands,  sur- 
render, acquiesce  —  let  the  robber  take  your  purse,  the 
ruffian  misuse  your  wife  or  child,  and  the  invader  over- 
run your  country,  without  so  much  as  raising  a  finger 
or  firing  a  shot  in  opposition.  In  resorting  to  force, 
under  however  disadvantageous  circumstances,  you  at 
least  have  some  chance  of  accomplishing  something ;  but 
in  "  non-resisting  " —  if  there  be  such  a  word !  —  you 
have  no  chance  at  all,  for  you  submit  at  the  very  start 
and  give  a  free  hand  to  your  assailant  to  work  his  will 
unhindered.  Certainly  there  can  be  no  comparison  be- 
tween the  two  methods,  either  as  regards  honour  or 
feasibility. 

So  it  would  seem  at  first  glance !  Further  considera- 
tion of  the  problem,  however,  will  show  that  there  are 
at  least  two  serious  errors  involved  in  this  reply. 

In  the  first  place,  there  is  the  error  of  assuming  that, 
because  you  attempt  to  do  something  by  resort  to  force, 
you  are  therefore  doing  something  effective  on  your 
own  behalf.  It  is  true  that  you  are  "  doing  some- 
thing "  when  you  offer  violent  resistance  to  your  as- 
sailant ;  but  it  is  also  true  that  you  are  doing  the  very 
thing  which  he  expects  you  to  do  and  for  which  there- 
fore he  is  amply  prepared.  In  other  words,  you  are 
doing  what,  in  all  reasonable  probability,  will  injure 
your  assailant  least  and  yourself  most.  You  are  doing 
the  one  thing  which  is  bound  to  fail,  and  leaving  undone 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      225 

many  things  which  may  possibly  succeed.  You  are 
certainly  no  match  for  your  assailant  in  physical 
strength,  but  you  are  very  likely  much  more  than  his 
match  in  wits,  in  patience,  in  self-control,  in  goodwill. 
Why  do  the  insane  thing  of  meeting  him  on  his  own 
ground  —  of  accepting  his  choice  of  weapons  ?  Why 
not  dictate  your  own  terms  of  battle,  and  thus  have 
some  chance  of  accomplishing  your  end? 

But  in  non-resistance,  you  say,  you  do  nothing  at 
all?  Surely  physical  resistance,  however  hazardous, 
is  better  than  servile  surrender? 

Here  is  the  second  error  in  this  reply.  For  surely 
it  must  have  become  apparent  long  before  this,  if  our 
argument  has  not  been  all  in  vain,  that  non-resistance 
means  anything  but  inaction,  abject  surrender  to  evil. 
Non-resistance  is  a  positive  and  not  a  negative  thing 
—  it  is  attack  not  submission,  but  attack  on  the  high 
ground  of  the  spirit  and  not  on  the  low  ground  of  the 
flesh.  "  No  man,"  says  Emerson,  with  his  customary 
acuteness  of  thought,  "  ever  embraces  the  cause  of 
peace  for  the  sole  end  and  satisfaction  of  being  plun- 
dered and  slain.  A  man  does  not  come  the  length  of  the 
spirit  of  martyrdom  without  some  active  purpose,  some 
equal  motive,  some  flaming  love."  And  one  such  pur- 
pose at  least  of  non-resistance  is  that  of  which  we  have 
just  now  been  speaking  —  the  shifting  of  the  ground 
of  battle  from  the  plane  where  the  defendant  is  at  a 
hopeless  disadvantage  to  the  plane  where  he  has  at  least 
an  equal,  and  in  all  probability  has  an  infinitely  su- 
perior, chance  of  winning  out.  The  non-resistant,  in 


NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

other  words,  quite  apart  from  his  deep-rooted  con- 
viction that  love  is  the  highest  duty  of  his  life,  has  a 
clear  idea  that,  if  he  resorts  to  violence  in  his  dealings 
with  those  to  whom  violence  is  as  the  very  breath  of 
their  nostrils,  he  is  bound  to  be  overcome,  but  that  if  he 
resorts  to  a  duel  of  wits  or  a  competition  of  goodwill, 
he  is  pretty  certain  to  emerge  triumphant.  He  does 
not  surrender  or  run  away.  He  will  die  rather  than 
see  his  wife  and  children  abused  without  his  interference 
—  die  rather  than  see  his  native  land  invaded  and  laid 
waste.  But  he  will  fight  the  good  fight  in  his  own  ele- 
ment. He  will  choose  the  weapons.  And  the  weapon 
in  this  case,  as  in  every  case,  will  be  love.  And  who 
that  knows  the  power  of  love  can  doubt  its  efficacy,  even 
in  the  most  dreadful  emergencies  of  life?  Think  of 
what  Paul  has  to  say  of  love !  "  Love  suffereth  long 
and  is  kind ;  love  envieth  not ;  love  vaunteth  not  itself,  is 
not  puffed  up,  is  not  easily  provoked,  thinketh  no  evil ; 
rejoiceth  not  in  iniquity,  but  rejoiceth  in  the  truth; 
beareth  all  things,  believeth  all  things,  hopeth  all 
things,  endureth  all  things."  Do  you  wonder  that, 
when  the  Apostle  has  listed  this  catalogue  of  virtues, 
he  ends  up  with  the  triumphant  declaration,  "  love  never 
faileth  "?  Of  course  it  "  never  faileth."  Love  softens 
all  enmity,  disarms  every  foe.  It  is  at  once  the  sword 
that  conquers  and  the  armour  that  wards.  The 
fallacies  of  force  are  apparent ;  but  not  less  apparent 
are  the  virtues  of  love. 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      ,227 


Our  faith  in  the  practicability  of  non-resistance, 
however,  is  still  an  assertion,  and  not  yet  a  demonstra- 
tion. Two  things  must  now  be  said  in  confirmation  of 
this  faith. 

First  of  all,  it  is  almost  uniformly  true  that  such 
violent  experiences  as  are  pointed  out  in  the  test-ques- 
tions submitted  above,  very  seldom  fall  to  the  lot  of  the 
man  who  is  a  lover  of  his  kind  and  therefore  a  "  peace- 
maker." "  Such  cases,"  says  Emerson,  in  his  Lecture 
on  War,  "seldom  or  never  occur  to  the  just  and  good 
man."  The  true  non-resistant,  as  a  general  rule,  does 
not  get  into  trouble,  for  the  reason  that  he  does  not 
make  trouble,  seek  trouble,  or  expect  trouble.  He 
leaves  all  such  experiences  as  these  to  the  advocate  of 
force,  who,  because  he  lives  in  the  realm  of  violence,  re- 
gards violence  as  the  invariable  condition  of  existence. 

A  good  example  of  this  truism  came  to  me  some 
months  ago  in  the  person  of  a  gentleman  who  had  heard 
me  discussing  certain  aspects  of  the  non-resistant  ques- 
tion in  the  pulpit.  He  informed  me  that  he  had  lived 
most  of  his  life  in  Mexico,  and  was  to  return  within  a 
fortnight  to  that  turbulent  and  war-stricken  country. 
Would  I  advise  him,  now,  to  go  back  to  his  old  haunts 
unarmed?  Did  I  believe  that  the  non-resistant  doctrine 
would  work  for  an  instant  under  such  conditions  as  pre- 
vailed in  nearly  every  part  of  the  Republic?  He  him- 
self, he  said,  had  little  use  for  any  such  preposterous 
ideas.  His  equipment  had  never  included  less  than 


228  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

seven  revolvers  or  rifles,  and  he  was  quite  ready  to 
testify  that,  on  many  occasions  the  presence,  and  on 
more  than  one  occasion  the  prompt  use,  of  these 
weapons,  had  alone  secured  him  from  attack  and  pos- 
sible death.  He  then  went  on  to  tell  me  about  the 
Mexican  people  —  their  dirt,  their  cruelty,  their  treach- 
ery, their  incapacity.  Scorn  curled  his  lips;  hatred 
darkened  his  brow ;  "  dagos,"  "  greasers,"  "  niggers," 
were  the  contemptuous  epithets  that  tripped  from  his 
tongue.  It  was  obvious  enough  that  this  man  had  noth- 
ing but  bitterness  in  his  heart  for  these  sorely  beset 
people  of  the  southern  Republic  —  and  that,  with  such 
a  temper  behind  his  actions,  nothing  but  trouble  could 
dog  his  footsteps.  If  he  did  not  find  trouble  in  his  deal- 
ings with  the  Mexicans,  he  would  certainly  make  plenty 
of  it  in  short  order.  So  I  advised  that,  in  his  case,  not 
seven  guns,  but  "  seventy  times  seven,"  were  an  advis- 
able equipment  —  and  I  ventured  to  express  my  doubt 
if  even  the  "  seventy  times  seven  "  could  save  him  in  the 
end. 

Then  I  thought  of  the  men  —  one  at  least  of  my  own 
acquaintance  —  who  had  roamed  Mexico  for  years  un- 
armed, loving  these  intensely  lovable  people  and  serv- 
ing them  whenever  opportunity  offered,  and  never  at 
any  time  meeting  trouble  or  suffering  injury.  I 
thought  of  Livingstone  threading  the  jungle  pathways 
of  central  Africa,  surrounded  on  every  hand  by  the 
savagest  people  on  the  surface  of  the  globe,  and  every- 
where finding  his  goodwill  matched  by  the  goodwill  of 
his  dusky  friends.  I  thought  of  General  Scott  of  the 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      229 

United  States  army,  just  at  that  moment  doing,  alone 
and  unarmed,  what  regiments  of  soldiers  had  failed  to 
do  —  subdue  the  revolting  Indians  of  Utah  by  the  sheer 
power  of  understanding  and  affection. 

Do  we  encounter  no  peace  or  security  in  the  world? 
Do  we  see  no  gentleness  and  goodwill  in  the  hearts  of 
men?  Is  not  the  trouble  with  ourselves?  "Thou 
find'st  it  not?  "  says  James  Russell  Lowell  — 

"  I  pray  thee  look  again, 

Look  inward  thro'  the  depths  of  thine  own  soul. 
How  is  it  with  thee?     Art  thou  sound  and  whole? 
Doth  narrow  search  show  thee  no  earthly  stain? 
Be  noble !     And  the  nobleness  that  lies 
In  other  men,  sleeping  but  never  dead, 
Will  rise  in  majesty  to  meet  thine  own: 
Then  wilt  thou  see  it  gleam  in  many  eyes. 
Then  will  pure  light  around  thy  path  be  shed." 

It  is  useless  to  deny,  however,  that  even  the  noblest 
lover  of  his  kind  may  now  and  then  encounter  accident. 
The  non-resistant's  house  can  boast  no  certain  im- 
munity from  burglary,  his  wife  may  fall  victim  to  as- 
sault, his  land  may  be  precipitated  into  war  by  the 
mad  folly  of  militarists  and  thus  exposed  to  hostile  in- 
vasion. What,  under  such  unusual  circumstances,  is  he 
to  do? 

The  answer  is  easy  —  he  is  to  appeal  with  calm  poise 
and  sure  reliance  to  the  spiritual  weapons  of  reason 
and  goodwill.  And  abundant  are  the  illustrations,  to 
be  drawn  from  history  and  personal  experience,  to 
prove  that  such  appeal  is  not  in  vain. 

First  of  all,  take  such  a  comparatively  trivial  mat- 


230  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

ter  as  a  personal  affront  or  insult !  Adin  Ballou,  in 
his  Christian  Non-Resistance,  tells  a  story  of  two 
students  in  a  certain  college  years  ago,  who  had  long 
been  friends,  and  who  one  day  fell  into  a  misunderstand- 
ing. One  of  the  two  young  men,  a  Southerner  of  un- 
governable temper,  proceeded  to  berate  his  comrade, 
and  finally  demanded  satisfaction  on  the  field  of  honour. 
The  other  young  man  refused  to  be  in  any  way  dis- 
turbed, ignored  the  challenge  to  a  duel,  and  persisted 
in  the  declaration  that  he  was  not  conscious  of  having 
done  any  harm,  but  that  if  his  friend  would  point  out 
his  offence  he  would  be  glad  to  make  amends.  The  an- 
swer was  only  a  new  torrent  of  abuse  and  insult. 
Whereupon  the  second  man  replied  that  he  had  always 
been  the  friend  of  his  college-mate,  always  would  con- 
tinue in  that  friendship,  and  expressed  the  hope  that 
the  old  relations  would  soon  be  resumed.  The  effect 
of  this  conduct  was  of  course  inevitable.  It  takes  two 
to  make  a  quarrel !  Before  the  interview  was  over,  the 
Southern  lad  was  overtaken  with  shame,  came  to  him- 
self, and  grasped  the  hand  of  his  forgiving  friend  in  a 
new  and  stronger  bond  of  affection. 

Such  an  experience  can  be  duplicated  in  nearly  every 
life.  In  my  own  case,  I  have  frequently  taken  advan- 
tage of  the  insulting  letters  which  occasionally  come  to 
the  desk  of  every  clergyman,  to  try  experiments  along 
this  line.  Thus  when  a  particularly  objectionable 
epistle  has  reached  me  from  somebody  in  my  own  city, 
I  put  on  hat  and  coat,  go  straight  to  the  home  or  busi- 
ness office  of  my  correspondent,  send  in  my  card  and 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      231 

ask  to  be  received.  Nothing  can  be  more  amusing  to 
the  deliberate  plotter  of  such  a  wicked  scheme  than  the 
confusion,  embarrassment,  and  chagrin  of  my  host  when 
I  enter  his  presence,  show  him  his  letter,  express  regret 
that  I  have  been  so  misunderstood,  and  offer  to  make 
explanations,  or,  if  I  have  unwittingly  done  him  injury, 
give  reparation.  Experiments  of  this  kind  have  taught 
me  that  Paul  was  far  more  cruel  than  kind  when  he 
recommended  pouring  "  coals  of  fire  "  upon  a  victim's 
head !  In  every  case,  however,  where  I  have  acted  upon 
this  policy,  I  have  put  my  assailant  immediately  on 
the  defensive,  received  from  him  sooner  or  later  profuse 
apologies,  and  ended  once  for  all  the  possibility  of  fur- 
ther insulting  letters  from  that  particular  source. 
Verily,  verily,  a  "  soft  answer  turneth  away  wrath ! " 

But  what  about  the  protection  of  property?  What 
are  we  going  to  do  when  we  are  halted  by  a  highway- 
man, or  our  homes  are  entered  by  burglars,  or  our  es- 
tates ravaged  by  the  depredations  of  the  heedless  or 
hostile  public?  Here  again  the  answer  is  the  same,  and 
the  evidence  not  lacking ! 

Thus  there  is  the  story  of  Dr.  Ramsay,  a  Methodist 
non-resistant  clergyman  of  England.  "  He  was  de- 
pendent for  his  living  upon  the  quarterly  collection 
made  by  his  people,  which  was  barely  sufficient  ...  to 
support  his  family.  On  the  night  that  one  of  these  col- 
lections was  taken  up,  he  was  obliged  to  preach  six  miles 
distant  from  his  home,  and  the  night  was  too  stormy  to 
allow  his  return.  During  the  night,  two  robbers  broke 
into  his  house,  called  up  Mrs.  Ramsay  and  her  sister, 


232  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

and  demanded  to  know  where  the  money  was.  Mrs. 
Ramsay,  in  her  night-dress,  lit  the  candle,  and  leading 
the  way  to  the  bureau  that  contained  the  precious  de- 
posit, procured  the  key,  opened  the  drawer,  and  point- 
ing out  the  money  as  it  lay  in  a  handkerchief,  said, 
'  This  is  all  we  have  to  live  on.  It  is  the  Lord's  money. 
Yet,  if  you  will  take  it,  there  it  is.'  With  this  remark 
she  left  them,  and  returned  to  bed.  The  next  morning, 
the  money  to  a  penny  was  found  undisturbed." 

A  story  of  the  same  kind  has  come  within  my  own 
experience.  It  concerns  two  women  who  lived  alone  in 
a  house  in  a  great  city.  The  one  was  an  invalid,  dan- 
gerously afflicted  with  some  kind  of  nervous  disorder; 
the  other  was  a  nurse.  On  a  certain  night,  the  house 
was  entered  by  burglars.  The  nurse,  awakened  by  the 
disturbance,  had  but  a  single  thought  —  that  of  saving 
her  patient  from  what  might  be  the  fatal  shock  of  fear 
or  excitement.  Hastily  donning  a  robe,  she  imme- 
diately went  down-stairs,  all  oblivious  of  peril,  entered 
the  dining-room  where  the  burglars  were  packing  the 
silver,  and  with  perfect  calmness  informed  the  aston- 
ished invaders  of  the  presence  of  the  invalid  and  asked 
them  to  leave  at  once  with  as  little  noise  as  possible. 
Whatever  they  desired  to  take  with  them,  she  added, 
they  were  welcome  to.  Immediately,  in  answer  to  this 
friendly  appeal,  with  every  indication  of  solicitude  and 
genuine  embarrassment,  the  burglars  gathered  up  their 
tools  and  hastened  away,  without  so  much  as  purloining 
a  single  spoon. 

More  important,  however,  than  the  fact  that  prop- 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      233 

erty  can  be  protected  by  methods  such  as  these  is  the 
further  fact  that  property  can  be  rendered  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes  immune  from  attack  by  a  frank  ex- 
tension of  these  methods.  Two  examples  will  illustrate 
what  I  mean. 

On  January  26,  1915,  I  received  a  letter  from  a 
lawyer  of  New  York  City,  which  read  as  follows : 

"  My  purpose  in  writing  you  is  to  inform  you  of  a 
fact  in  real  life,  within  my  knowledge,  which  seems  to 
me  stronger  than  the  fiction  of  Bishop  Myriel's  confi- 
dence in  his  fellowmen  as  evidenced  by  his  omitting 
locks  and  bars  from  his  house.  A  leading  San  Fran- 
cisco man,  now  dead,  for  many  years  owned  a  beautiful 
country  estate  situated  about  an  hour's  ride  by  boat 
and  rail  from  his  place  of  business.  It  consisted  of 
many  acres  a  considerable  distance  from  any  other 
habitation  on  a  well-travelled  highway  leading  to  Mt. 
Tamalpais.  He  maintained  there  a  residence  for  his 
own  use,  and  several  cottages  for  the  use  of  his  guests. 
And  there  was  not  a  lock  or  bolt  on  a  single  door  in  any 
of  them  —  nothing  but  a  common  latch.  Shortly  be- 
fore his  death  I  visited  this  place  as  his  guest,  and  saw 
in  these  houses  vast  quantities  of  the  most  expensive 
household  furnishings,  linens  and  silverware,  sculpture, 
bronzes,  china,  and  paintings.  He  was  a  collector  of 
works  of  art,  and  kept  perhaps  $100,000  worth  of  per- 
sonal property  in  these  houses.  For  weeks  at  a  time 
he  left  the  entire  property  absolutely  alone,  without 
even  a  caretaker,  except  for  the  occasional  visit  of  a 
servant  from  his  city  home.  At  the  time  of  my  visit 


234  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

he  told  me  that  he  had  never  lost  the  slightest  article 
and  that  no  one  had  even  attempted  to  enter  the 
premises  with  wrongful  purpose.  He  told  me  that  if  it 
were  not  to  protect  his  property  from  the  weather  he 
would  have  no  doors  at  all.  He  said  men  could  always 
be  trusted  more  safely  than  they  could  be  feared,  and 
he  lived  up  to  his  ideals.  There  are  many  people  in 
San  Francisco  who  can  verify  the  above.  His  widow 
lives  there,  and  I  will  be  glad  to  give  you  her  name  and 
address  if  you  wish  to  confirm  this." 

I  immediately  replied  to  this  letter,  asking  for  per- 
mission to  use  the  remarkable  information  therein  con- 
veyed. This  was  granted  in  a  letter  from  my  corre- 
spondent, under  date  of  January  27.  Later  on,  I  re- 
ceived a  third  letter,  dated  February  19,  as  follows: 

"  Referring  to  my  letters  to  you  under  date  of  Janu- 
ary 25  and  27,  I  beg  to  state  that,  desiring  to  refresh 

my  recollection  of  the  matter,  I  wrote  Mrs.  ,*  the 

widow,  enclosing  the  correspondence  with  you.  I  to- 
day have  a  reply  in  which  she  confirms  my  statement, 
except  that  she  thinks  that  my  estimate  of  the  total 
valuation  of  the  personal  property  may  be  a  little 
higher  than  it  was  at  any  one  time,  though  it  was  very 
large  and  may  have  been  as  much.  She  gives  me  the 
additional  information,  which  may  be  of  use  to  you, 
that  later  on,  due  to  the  urgency  of  herself  and  other 

members  of  her  family,  Mr.  was  induced  to  put 

locks  and  bolts  on  some  of  the  doors,  and  to  keep  some 

i  The  name  is  on  my  files,  but  is  here  withheld  for  obvious 
reasons. 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      235 

one  at  the  place  all  the  time ;  and  that  afterwards  they 
were  troubled  by  thieves  and  vandals." 

The  second  illustration  is  gathered  from  my  own 
experience.  Some  months  ago  I  was  the  guest  of  a  dis- 
tinguished business  man  in  a  city  of  the  Middle  West. 
My  host  was  the  owner  of  a  beautiful  estate,  situated 
just  on  the  outskirts  of  the  city,  and  comprising  many 
acres  of  woods,  pastures  and  gardens.  In  the  early 
days  of  his  possession  of  this  land,  the  gentleman  to 
whom  I  refer  had  taken  care  to  protect  his  property 
with  fences,  gates,  armed  watchmen,  etc. ;  but  during 
this  period  invasions  and  depredations  were  constant. 
After  a  while,  in  disgust  perhaps  at  his  ill-success,  he 
decided  to  change  his  policy.  Guards  were  discharged, 
gates  unlocked,  fences  removed,  and  announcement  made 
to  the  citizens  of  the  community  that  the  property  was 
open  freely  to  the  public  on  condition  that  certain  rea- 
sonable wishes  and  regulations,  which  were  duly  posted, 
were  complied  with.  Since  that  time,  the  land  has  been 
used  by  thousands  of  people  —  and  to-day  it  is  to  all 
intents  and  purposes  a  public  park !  —  but  no  damage 
has  been  done  and  no  property  lost. 

While  riding  through  this  estate  one  day,  we  stopped 
at  a  greenhouse,  located  on  the  edge  of  a  large  stretch 
of  cultivated  ground,  right  beside  a  public  highway. 
As  we  entered  to  examine  the  vegetables  and  flowers,  I 
noticed  that  the  door  was  unlocked,  no  watchman  or 
even  gardener  in  sight,  and  that  in  addition  there  were 
wash-rooms  for  men  and  women  on  cither  side  of  the  en- 
trance passage-way.  I  at  once  inquired  if  the  green- 


236  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

house  was  regularly  left  wide  open  and  unguarded  in 
this  way,  and  was  informed  that  this  was  the  case.  Ex- 
perience had  shown  that  this  was  the  only  way  to  pro- 
tect the  place  from  attack.  Every  effort  was  made  to 
attract  visitors  and  make  them  welcome  —  with  the  re- 
sult that  not  a  blossom  was  ever  plucked  or  a  tool  dis- 
turbed. In  other  words,  this  man  had  perfect  confi- 
dence in  the  goodwill  of  his  fellow-citizens  —  and  this 
confidence  had  not  yet  been  abused ! 

Such  illustrations  as  these  go  far  toward  proving  the 
perfect  security  of  property  when  handled  on  the  non- 
resistant  principle.  It  only  remains  now  to  consider 
the  question  of  our  persons.  Is  the  doctrine  of  non- 
resistance  equally  practicable  when  applied  to  crises  af- 
fecting the  security  of  life?  What  about  assaults, 
hold-ups,  riots  —  all  conditions  of  social  unrest  and 
disturbance?  Will  reason  and  love  work  here,  or  shall 
we  be  wise  and  prepare  ourselves  for  the  occasional  re- 
sort to  force? 

That  force  is  never  necessary,  even  under  the  most 
trying  circumstances,  is  shown  conclusively  by  the  con- 
duct of  Jesus  on  the  one  occasion  in  his  career  when  he 
was  placed  in  the  position  of  defending  another  from 
violent  death.  This  was  a  position  of  peculiar  diffi- 
culty. On  the  one  side  was  a  wretched  woman,  who  had 
been  "  taken  in  adultery,"  and  who,  by  the  accepted  law 
and  custom  of  the  age,  was  doomed  to  death  by  stoning. 
On  the  other  side,  was  not  one  man  or  a  group  of  men, 
but  a  mob  raging  against  the  guilty  woman  and  waiting 
only  the  word  of  the  leaders  to  destroy  her.  What  did 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      237 

Jesus  do  under  these  terrifying  conditions?  Did  he 
threaten  the  crowd  with  punishment?  Did  he  throw 
himself  between  the  crowd  and  its  crouching  victim  in 
an  attitude  of  menace  or  defiance?  Did  he  strike  madly 
right  and  left,  in  the  vain  hope  of  putting  the  mob 
to  flight,  in  the  sublime  determination  to  die  himself 
rather  than  to  stand  by  and  see  the  woman  die?  He 
might  have  done  any  one  of  these  things,  not  without 
credit  to  himself.  But  if  so,  we  may  be  sure  that  his 
efforts  would  have  been  futile.  He  would  have  but 
stirred  the  throng  to  wilder  fury  and  doomed  the  woman 
to  a  more  fearful  death !  Instead  of  resorting  to  vio- 
lence of  any  kind,  however,  he  simply  spoke  some  words, 
and  then,  turning  away,  began  to  write  upon  the  sand. 
Could  anything  have  been  more  utterly  ridiculous ! 
And  yet,  we  are  told  that  when  Jesus  finished  his  writ- 
ing and  looked  about  him,  the  mob  was  dispersed  and 
the  woman  saved ! 

It  is  difficult  to  find  another  incident  to  match  this, 
for  the  same  reason  that  it  is  difficult  to  find  another 
personality  to  match  the  Nazarene.  Other  episodes, 
only  less  striking,  however,  are  not  uncommon.  The 
famous  story  of  Archbishop  Sharpe,  a  distinguished 
churchman  of  England,  comes  immediately  to  mind. 
According  to  the  account  of  the  essayist,  Jonathan  Dy- 
mond,  "  Archbishop  Sharpe  was  assaulted  by  a  footpad 
on  the  highway,  who  presented  a  pistol  and  demanded 
money.  The  Archbishop  spoke  to  the  robber  in  the 
language  of  a  fellow-man  and  of  a  Christian.  The  man 
was  really  in  distress,  and  the  prelate  gave  him  such 


238  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

money  as  he  had,  and  promised  that,  if  he  would  call 
at  the  palace,  he  would  make  up  the  amount  to  fifty 
pounds.  This  was  the  sum  of  which  the  robber  had 
said  he  was  in  the  utmost  need.  The  man  called  and 
received  the  money.  About  a  year  and  a  half  after- 
wards, this  man  came  again  to  the  palace,  and  brought 
back  the  same  sum.  He  said  that  his  circumstances 
had  become  improved  and  that,  through  the  astonishing 
goodness  of  the  Archbishop,  he  had  become  the  most 
penitent,  the  most  grateful,  and  happiest  of  his  species." 
Similar  stories  of  this  same  kind,  as  of  Robert  Bar- 
clay and  Leonard  Fell,  the  English  Quakers,  of  John 
Pomphret,  the  English  Methodist,  of  Rowland  Hill,  the 
well-known  London  preacher,  could  be  multiplied  almost 
indefinitely.  No  man  who  has  had  faith  and  courage 
enough  to  put  the  non-resistant  principle  to  the  test 
even  under  the  most  trying  conditions,  but  has  his  tale 
of  triumph  to  narrate.  All  these  personal  anecdotes 
I  put  one  side,  however,  to  come  the  more  speedily  to 
the  experience  of  the  Quakers,  as  a  group,  which  consti- 
tutes not  only  a  demonstration  of  the  practicability  of 
non-resistance,  but,  entirely  apart  from  this  particular 
subject  here  under  discussion,  one  of  the  most  glorious 
episodes  of  history. 

VI 

The  story  of  the  Quakers  is  everywhere  the  same. 
The  chapter  which  has  special  interest  for  us,  however, 
is  that  pertaining  to  the  coming  of  the  Quakers  to  North 
America  in  the  seventeenth  century,  and  more  particu- 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      239 

larly  their  settlement  in  the  colony  of  Pennsylvania, 
under  the  leadership  of  William  Penn.  All  the  world 
has  of  course  heard  the  thrilling  story  —  how  Penn  and 
his  Quaker  followers  landed  on  the  banks  of  the  Schuyl- 
kill  River  unarmed,  met  with  the  savage  and  suspicious 
redskins  under  the  famous  oak  tree,  and  gave  to  them 
the  hand  of  friendship.  "  The  Great  God,"  said  Penn 
in  his  address  to  the  Indians,  "  hath  written  his  law  in 
our  hearts  by  which  we  are  taught  and  commanded  to 
love  and  help  and  do  good  to  one  another.  It  is  not 
our  custom  to  use  hostile  weapons  against  our  fellow- 
creatures,  for  which  reason  we  come  unarmed.  Our  ob- 
ject is  not  to  do  injury  but  to  do  good.  We  are  now 
met  on  the  broad  pathway  of  good  faith  and  goodwill, 
so  that  no  advantage  is  to  be  taken  on  either  side,  but 
all  is  to  be  openness,  brotherhood,  and  love,  while  all  are 
to  be  treated  as  of  the  same  flesh  and  blood." 

If  the  experience  of  the  other  colonies  of  the  Atlantic 
seaboard  was  any  criterion,  Penn  and  his  followers,  by 
this  crazy  action,  were  only  preparing  themselves  for 
inevitable  destruction.  Any  wise  militarist  of  Massa- 
chusetts, Connecticut,  Maryland,  or  Virginia  could  have 
told  him  of  the  treacherous  character  of  the  North 
American  Indians,  their  bloodthirstiness,  their  unex- 
pected raids  with  tomahawk  and  torch  —  and  the  abso- 
lute necessity  therefore  of  being  armed  to  the  teeth  in 
preparation  for,  and  security  against,  attack.  But  the 
Quakers  did  not  know,  or,  if  they  did  know,  they  did  not 
believe ;  and  thus  they  came  to  this  wilderness  without 
so  much  as  a  sword  or  a  rifle,  and  settled  down  to  es- 


238  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

money  as  he  had,  and  promised  that,  if  he  would  call 
at  the  palace,  he  would  make  up  the  amount  to  fifty 
pounds.  This  was  the  sum  of  which  the  robber  had 
said  he  was  in  the  utmost  need.  The  man  called  and 
received  the  money.  About  a  year  and  a  half  after- 
wards, this  man  came  again  to  the  palace,  and  brought 
back  the  same  sum.  He  said  that  his  circumstances 
had  become  improved  and  that,  through  the  astonishing 
goodness  of  the  Archbishop,  he  had  become  the  most 
penitent,  the  most  grateful,  and  happiest  of  his  species." 
Similar  stories  of  this  same  kind,  as  of  Robert  Bar- 
clay and  Leonard  Fell,  the  English  Quakers,  of  John 
Pomphret,  the  English  Methodist,  of  Rowland  Hill,  the 
well-known  London  preacher,  could  be  multiplied  almost 
indefinitely.  No  man  who  has  had  faith  and  courage 
enough  to  put  the  non-resistant  principle  to  the  test 
even  under  the  most  trying  conditions,  but  has  his  tale 
of  triumph  to  narrate.  All  these  personal  anecdotes 
I  put  one  side,  however,  to  come  the  more  speedily  to 
the  experience  of  the  Quakers,  as  a  group,  which  consti- 
tutes not  only  a  demonstration  of  the  practicability  of 
non-resistance,  but,  entirely  apart  from  this  particular 
subject  here  under  discussion,  one  of  the  most  glorious 
episodes  of  history. 

VI 

The  story  of  the  Quakers  is  everywhere  the  same. 
The  chapter  which  has  special  interest  for  us,  however, 
is  that  pertaining  to  the  coming  of  the  Quakers  to  North 
America  in  the  seventeenth  century,  and  more  particu- 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      239 

larly  their  settlement  in  the  colony  of  Pennsylvania, 
under  the  leadership  of  William  Penn.  All  the  world 
has  of  course  heard  the  thrilling  story  —  how  Penn  and 
his  Quaker  followers  landed  on  the  banks  of  the  Schuyl- 
kill  River  unarmed,  met  with  the  savage  and  suspicious 
redskins  under  the  famous  oak  tree,  and  gave  to  them 
the  hand  of  friendship.  "  The  Great  God,"  said  Penn 
in  his  address  to  the  Indians,  "  hath  written  his  law  in 
our  hearts  by  which  we  are  taught  and  commanded  to 
love  and  help  and  do  good  to  one  another.  It  is  not 
our  custom  to  use  hostile  weapons  against  our  fellow- 
creatures,  for  which  reason  we  come  unarmed.  Our  ob- 
ject is  not  to  do  injury  but  to  do  good.  We  are  now 
met  on  the  broad  pathway  of  good  faith  and  goodwill, 
so  that  no  advantage  is  to  be  taken  on  either  side,  but 
all  is  to  be  openness,  brotherhood,  and  love,  while  all  are 
to  be  treated  as  of  the  same  flesh  and  blood." 

If  the  experience  of  the  other  colonies  of  the  Atlantic 
seaboard  was  any  criterion,  Penn  and  his  followers,  by 
this  crazy  action,  were  only  preparing  themselves  for 
inevitable  destruction.  Any  wise  militarist  of  Massa- 
chusetts, Connecticut,  Maryland,  or  Virginia  could  have 
told  him  of  the  treacherous  character  of  the  North 
American  Indians,  their  bloodthirstiness,  their  unex- 
pected raids  with  tomahawk  and  torch  —  and  the  abso- 
lute necessity  therefore  of  being  armed  to  the  teeth  in 
preparation  for,  and  security  against,  attack.  But  the 
Quakers  did  not  know,  or,  if  they  did  know,  they  did  not 
believe ;  and  thus  they  came  to  this  wilderness  without 
so  much  as  a  sword  or  a  rifle,  and  settled  down  to  es- 


242  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

upon  hostilities  with  the  colonists.  All  such  special  ex- 
planations as  these,  however,  fail  to  account  for  the  fur- 
ther fact  that  the  Quakers  who  chanced  to  live  in  other 
settlements,  such  as  those  in  New  England  or  Virginia, 
which  were  constantly  harried  by  Indian  warfare,  en- 
joyed exactly  the  same  immunity  from  injury  as  that 
enjoyed  by  the  Pennsylvanians.  The  other  settlers  in 
other  places  lived  in  armed  houses,  carried  weapons 
wherever  they  went,  and  in  case  of  attack  from  the 
forests  fled  at  once  to  the  block-houses  prepared  for 
these  occasions.  The  Quakers,  however,  true  to  their 
principles,  lived  in  houses  which  were  undefended,  never 
carried  arms  of  any  kind,  and,  when  the  Indians  came 
sweeping  down  upon  the  villages,  went  undisturbed  about 
their  daily  tasks  as  though  nothing  unusual  were  hap- 
pening. And  what  was  their  fate?  Were  they  the 
first  to  be  butchered  in  cold  blood?  On  the  contrary, 
they  were  the  only  members  of  these  communities  who 
were  left  unharmed.  In  all  the  Indian  fighting  of  these 
early  colonial  days,  only  three  Quakers,  so  far  as  we 
know,  were  slain.  And  these  were  Quakers,  who,  under 
stress  of  great  alarm,  were  persuaded  to  arm  themselves 
against  attack !  Two  were  men  who  were  accustomed 
to  go  to  their  labour  unarmed ;  "  but  a  spirit  of  distrust 
taking  place  in  their  minds,  they  took  weapons  of  war 
to  defend  themselves,  and  the  Indians,  who  had  seen 
them  several  times  without  them  and  let  them  alone  .  .  . 
now  seeing  them  with  guns,  and  supposing  that  they 
were  designed  to  kill  the  Indians,  therefore  shot  them 
dead."  The  other  was  a  woman,  who,  on  the  occasion 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      243 

of  a  raid,  had  remained  in  her  habitation,  not  deigning 
to  go  to  the  block -house  for  protection.  Later,  becom- 
ing frightened,  she  fled  with  her  children,  and  on  the 
way  was  killed. 

The  surest  test  to  which  the  peace  principles  of  the 
Quakers  were  ever  subjected,  however,  was  that  which 
came  in  Ireland,  on  the  occasion  of  the  memorable  Re- 
bellion in  1798.  Two  years  before  this  outbreak  oc- 
curred, the  Quakers,  anticipating  serious  trouble,  met 
together  in  their  meeting-houses  and  publicly  destroyed 
their  firearms  which  they  were  in  the  custom  of  using 
for  game.  This  they  did,  so  one  of  the  statements  ran, 
*'  to  prevent  (arms)  being  made  use  of  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  our  fellow-creatures  and  more  fully  and  clearly 
to  support  our  peaceable  and  Christian  testimony  in 
these  perilous  times."  In  other  words,  they  did  just 
the  opposite  of  what  the  Belgians  did  last  year.  In- 
stead of  arming  themselves  against  those  who  they 
feared  were  getting  ready  to  attack  them,  they  went  out 
of  their  way  to  proclaim  their  defenselessness.  Feeling 
sure  that  war  was  coming,  they  prepared  not  for  war, 
but  for  peace.  And  what  was  the  result?  For  two 
years,  from  1798  to  1800,  the  Rebellion  raged.  Thou- 
sands of  men  were  killed,  hundreds  of  women  outraged, 
fields  were  ravaged  and  towns  destroyed.  Victory  alter- 
nated from  side  to  side,  and  by  both  sides  were  the 
Quakers  "  despised  and  rejected."  The  Protestants 
viewed  them  with  scorn  because  they  would  not  fight  for 
the  Protestant  cause  or  even  pay  military  taxes ;  the 
Catholic  insurgents  hated  them  because  they  would 


244  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

neither  profess  the  true  faith  nor  help  them  fight  for 
Irish  freedom.  Threats  and  insults  were  heaped  upon 
them  by  both  parties.  More  than  once  they  were 
brought  face  to  face  with  death.  But,  steadfast  in 
their  faith  and  practice,  they  everywhere  escaped.  In 
course  of  time  their  homes  became  known  as  sure  havens 
of  safety,  and  were  sought  out  by  fleeing  women  and 
wounded  men.  At  last,  their  unfailing  deeds  of  kind- 
ness to  both  Protestants  and  Catholics  had  their  inevi- 
table effect,  so  that  toward  the  close  of  the  Rebellion, 
whichever  party  would  enter  a  village  after  a  victorious 
fight,  the  cry  would  go  up,  "  Spare  the  Quakers  —  they 
do  good  to  all,  and  harm  to  none ! "  It  is  worthy  of 
memory  that,  in  all  these  dreadful  months  of  ravage  and 
slaughter,  only  one  Quaker  is  known  to  have  been  killed. 
This  was  a  young  man  who,  being  afraid  to  trust  peace 
principles,  put  on  a  uniform  and  went  to  the  garrison 
for  protection.  This  man  was  later  captured  by  the 
enemy,  and  he  was  killed.  "  His  dress  and  arms  spoke 
the  language  of  hostility,"  says  the  historian,  "  and 
therefore  invited  it." 

vn 

The  Quakers,  however,  are  not  the  only  organised 
group  of  modern  times,  whose  experience  gives  us 
demonstration  of  the  practicability  of  the  non-resistant 
principle.  More  remarkable,  in  certain  ways,  is  the 
story  of  the  famous  sect  of  the  Bahaists. 

If  there  are  any  conditions  amid  which  the  practice  of 
non-resistance  would  seem  to  be  as  impossible  as  it 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      245 

would  be  ignoble,  these  conditions  are  certainly  to  be 
found  in  the  Empire  of  Turkey.  The  horror  of  the 
Armenian  persecutions,  through  many  generations  past, 
is  a  case  in  point.  Here  have  inoffensive  and  unoffend- 
ing Christians  been  set  upon  by  the  bloodthirsty  emis- 
saries of  the  Sultan  and  his  ministers,  and  visited  with 
such  indignities,  sufferings,  agonies  as  few  other  peo- 
ples, in  all  the  long  history  of  human  misery,  have  ever 
been  called  upon  to  endure.  Villages  levelled  to  the 
ground  —  country-sides  put  to  the  sword  —  popula- 
tions driven  like  sheep  into  wilderness  and  desert,  there 
to  perish  of  thirst,  hunger,  exposure  and  exhaustion  — 
men  by  the  hundreds  shut  up  in  churches  and  burned 
alive  —  women  by  the  thousands  ravished,  mutilated  or 
spared  only  for  captivity  in  harems  —  children  aban- 
doned, murdered,  torn  limb  from  limb,  tossed  in  idle 
sport  from  spear  to  spear  —  what  words  are  adequate 
to  describe  the  enormity  of  these  crimes !  And  who 
can  dare  to  argue,  in  the  face  of  such  crimes,  that  non- 
resistance  is  a  practicable  law  of  life?  Would  it  have 
availed  these  wretched  Armenians  anything  to  have  of- 
fered no  resistance  to  their  Turkish  murderers? 
Would  they  have  won  any  security  or  saved  any  lives 
by  submitting  tamely  to  the  hand  of  the  oppressor? 
And  even  if  prudence  might  have  dictated  such  a  course 
of  action,  would  it  not  have  been  the  height  of  coward- 
ice to  have  acquiesced?  Was  it  not  the  duty  of  every 
man  to  resist  to  the  death  the  violators  of  his  home, 
and  of  every  woman  to  fight  to  the  last  in  defence  of 
her  own  honour  and  the  safety  of  her  children?  Is  it 


246  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

not  sufficient,  in  a  word,  to  encounter  one  experience  of 
this  kind  to  see  to  what  a  reductio  ad  absurdum  we  are 
speedily  brought  by  any  thorough-going  discussion  of 
this  question? 

In  answer  to  these  inquiries  just  two  things  are  to  be 
said.  First  of  all,  it  must  be  noted  that  the  appeal  to 
force  has  in  this  case  accomplished  nothing  in  the  way 
of  guaranteeing  to  the  Armenians  immunity  from  at- 
tack, or  protecting  them  from  unmentionable  horrors 
when  attacked.  Neither  the  arms  of  the  Armenians 
themselves,  nor  the  enormous  armaments  of  the  Chris- 
tian nations  of  Europe  and  America  to  which  appeal 
for  aid  has  repeatedly  been  made,  have  restrained  the 
blood-stained  hand  of  the  Turkish  oppressor.  Indeed, 
it  may  fairly  be  asked  if  the  tradition  of  Christian 
militancy  as  made  known  to  the  Mohammedan  through 
many  centuries  gone  by,  and  the  call  of  the  Armenians 
to  an  armed  Christendom  for  protection  and  redress, 
have  not  served  to  aggravate,  if  not  actually  create,  the 
situation?  In  any  case,  Armenian  massacres  have  been 
for  years  a  constantly  recurring  event  in  Turkish  his- 
tory ;  and  the  outbreak  of  the  Great  War  was  the  signal 
for  worse  atrocities  than  have  ever  been  known  before. 
The  appeal  to  force  is  a  failure ! 

But  would  non-resistance  have  been  a  success?  To 
this  we  answer,  Yes  —  and  for  the  simple  reason  that, 
under  exactly  similar  circumstances,  it  has  succeeded ! 
For  the  Armenians  are  not  the  only  religionists  in  the 
Mohammedan  world  who  have  been  ruthlessly  perse- 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      247 

cuted.  Side  by  side  with  them,  through  many  years, 
suffered  and  died  the  followers  of  the  Bab.  Shot  to 
death  himself  in  a  public  square  in  Tabriz  in  July,  1850, 
this  noble  prophet  of  the  soul  left  behind  him  many  dis- 
ciples who  devoted  themselves,  like  the  early  apostles  of 
Christ,  to  the  preaching  of  his  gospel  to  a  hostile  world. 
Very  speedily  the  Mohammedan  authorities  became 
alarmed,  especially  after  an  unsuccessful  attack  upon 
the  life  of  the  Persian  Shah  by  a  crazed  Babi,  and  per- 
secution of  the  most  terrible  character  was  set  on  foot. 
In  the  frenzied  massacres  which  followed,  thirty  thou- 
sand men,  women  and  children  were  cut  down  in  cold 
blood.  Outrages  of  every  description  were  practised, 
cruelties  of  the  last  degree  of  refinement  perpetrated, 
upon  defenseless  and  terrified  populations.  The  leaders 
were  seized,  some  of  them  killed  and  others  imprisoned. 
Baha  o'llah,  the  successor  of  the  Bab,  was  stripped  of 
his  property,  imprisoned  in  a  noisome  dungeon,  and  at 
last  banished  from  the  kingdom.  In  Turkey,  where  he 
took  refuge,  he  was  in  1868  doomed  to  the  prison  of 
Akka  in  Palestine,  where  he  remained  till  his  death. 
And  here  also,  for  a  period  of  forty  years,  languished 
his  disciple  and  later  successor,  Abdul  Baha. 

Thus  far  the  story  of  the  Bahaists  is  that  of  the 
Armenians.  But  now  appears  the  difference.  Instead 
of  meeting  violence  with  violence,  or  appealing  from  the 
sword  of  Mohammed  to  the  sword  of  Christ,  the  fol- 
lowers of  the  Bab,  like  the  early  Christians  in  Rome, 
dedicated  themselves  resolutely  to  the  ideal  of  non-re- 


24,8  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

sistance.  Not  a  sword  was  drawn  or  a  staff  lifted  in 
defence  of  their  homes  and  persons  against  the  assaults 
of  their  enemies.  Protests  were  uttered,  prayers  of- 
fered, appeals  to  pity  spoken  —  but  no  resort  was 
had  to  violence  of  any  kind.  With  the  result  that 
slaughter  very  soon  ceased,  persecutions  ended,  prison 
doors  opened ;  and  Bahaism  is  now  taught  and  practised 
by  millions  of  devotees  without  interference  by  the  au- 
thorities !  Long  before  Balm  o'llah  died,  he  saw  his 
followers  protected  from  attack  by  the  sheer  power  of 
their  own  endurance,  patience  and  unfailing  goodwill. 
In  his  old  age,  he  was  himself  released  from  prison,  so 
great  was  the  impression  made  upon  his  jailers  "  by  the 
uniform  kindness  and  fairness  the  Bahaists  displayed 
toward  each  other  and  toward  their  keepers."  Abdul 
Baha,  also,  after  forty  years  of  suffering,  has  won 
similar  immunity  by  similar  ways  of  the  spirit,  and  is 
now  permitted  a  latitude  of  speech  and  action  within 
the  confines  of  Islam  which  would  not  under  any  cir- 
cumstances be  granted  to  a  native  Christian.  Again 
has  love  done  its  perfect  work.  Again  has  the  spirit 
triumphed,  where  the  flesh  has  failed.  Well  does  an 
historian  of  this  movement  declare  that  "  religious  faith, 
in  our  own  times,  once  more  revealed  its  secret  power 
to  triumph  over  the  agony  of  fire  and  steel."  Nor  is 
any  record  to  be  found  of  denunciation  of  these  mar- 
tyrs for  cowardice  or  shame  in  thus  enduring  and  hop- 
ing all  things ! 

i  See  Horace  Holley's  The  Modern  Social  Religion,  page  160. 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      210 

vin 

To  the  Quakers  and  the  Bahaists  must  now  be  added 
the  socialists,  who  are  exemplars,  from  the  wider  view- 
point at  least,  of  all  the  best  that  we  mean  by  non-re- 
sistance. The  story  of  the  mighty  and  successful  bat- 
tles which  they  have  waged  against  the  capitalistic  des- 
potisms of  modern  times  presents  many  illustrations  of 
the  perfect  efficacy  of  the  pacifist  method  of  attack, 
but  none  is  quite  so  cunning  and  inspiring,  perhaps,  as 
that  of  the  triumphant  twelve-years'  fight  of  the  Ger- 
man socialists  against  Bismarck  and  the  Hohenzollern-s. 

In  October,  1878,  as  a  result  be  it  noted,  of  a  succes- 
sion of  terrorist  outrages,  there  was  passed  by  the 
German  Reichstag,  after  a  battle  royal  between  the 
Chancellor  on  the  one  side  and  Bebel  and  Liebknecht  on 
the  other,  an  anti-socialist  law  which  was  intended  to 
cut  off  every  legal  and  peaceable  means  of  advancing 
the  socialist  cause.  The  chief  measures  of  the  law  l 
prohibited  the  formation  or  existence  of  socialist  or- 
ganisations, so  restricted  the  right  of  assembly  that  all 
socialist  meetings,  festivals  and  processions  were  made 
impossible,  interdicted  all  socialist  publications,  both 
domestic  and  foreign,  confiscated  all  socialist  books  and 
printing  presses,  and  forbade  the  collection  of  money 
on  behalf  of  socialistic  activities  either  by  private  as- 
sessment or  public  appeal.  Persons  violating  these  pro- 
hibitions were  liable  to  punishments  varying  from  a  fine 
of  500  marks  or  three  months'  imprisonment  to  expul- 

i  See  Robert  Hunter's  Violence  and  the  Labor  Movement. 


250  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

sion  from  a  certain  neighbourhood  or  governmental  dis- 
trict. Ample  powers  for  enforcing  these  prohibitions 
were  lodged  in  the  local  and  national  police. 

For  the  moment  it  seemed  as  though  the  enactment  of 
this  law  marked  the  end  of  German  socialism.  So- 
cieties were  instantly  dissolved,  newspapers  and  maga- 
zines suppressed,  printing  establishments  confiscated, 
and  agitators  imprisoned  or  expelled.  "  Within  a  few 
weeks,"  says  Mr.  Hunter,  "  not  a  thing  seemed  left  of 
the  great  movement  of  half  a  million  men  that  had  ex- 
isted a  few  weeks  before."  Here,  if  ever,  was  a  case 
where  violence  would  seem  to  have  been  justifiable. 
Where  or  when  can  be  found  a  state  of  affairs  which 
more  nearly  meets  the  condition  of  ultima  ratio  laid 
down  by  Professor  Rauschenbusch?  1  Had  arson,  as- 
sassination, and  general  murder  broken  loose  throughout 
the  Empire,  it  would  be  difficult  to  condemn  the  utilisa- 
tion of  such  methods  of  force.  Nor  were  the  terrorists 
of  the  time  slow  to  see  the  opportunity  and  to  point  its 
moral.  "  All  measures  are  legitimate  against  tyrants," 
cried  Johann  Most  from  the  safe  refuge  of  London,  and 
here  certainly  was  tyranny  at  its  very  worst. 

In  spite  of  the  extreme  provocation  of  the  situation, 
however,  the  German  socialists  stood  steadfast  against 
resort  to  violence.  Instead  of  fighting,  they  gave  them- 
selves to  the  development  of  an  underground  socialist 
movement  that  proved  most  baffling  to  the  police.  In  a 
hundred  mysterious  ways  the  propaganda  was  cease- 
lessly conducted  throughout  the  Empire.  Papers  were 

i  See  above,  Chapter  II,  page  45. 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      251 

passed  from  hand  to  hand ;  meetings  were  held  in  vacant 
fields  and  darkened  cellars ;  funds  were  raised  to  support 
agitators  whose  dangerous  duty  it  was  to  keep  the  fires 
burning  in  hidden  places.  In  spite  of  all  that  Bismarck 
and  his  minions  could  do  —  in  spite  of  martial  law,  fines, 
imprisonments,  banishments  —  the  agitation  went  on. 
Month  after  month,  year  after  year,  reports  came  to 
the  Chancellor  of  the  continued  life  of  the  movement, 
and,  what  was  more  astounding,  of  its  rapid  growth. 
In  1886,  infuriated  beyond  measure  by  the  failure  of 
his  programme,  Bismarck  arrested  nine  of  the  socialist 
deputies  in  the  Reichstag  on  charges  of  belonging  to  a 
secret  and  illegal  organisation.  All  the  accused  were 
convicted  and  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  six  or  nine 
months.  But  even  this  did  not  avail  to  stop  the  move- 
ment. Slowly,  surely,  without  the  firing  of  a  single  gun 
or  the  throwing  of  a  single  bomb,  the  work  went  on 
from  strength  to  strength.  Whereas  the  socialist  vote 
in  1878,  when  the  law  was  enacted,  was  450,000,  in 
the  election  of  1890  it  mounted  to  1,427,000.  Defeat 
was  apparent ;  and  in  spite  of  all  Bismarck's  pleas  to 
the  contrary,  a  disgusted  Reichstag,  in  September  30, 
1890,  repealed  the  law. 

Never  was  there  a  greater  victory  —  and  never  a 
victory  which  showed  more  convincingly  the  irresistible 
momentum  of  moral,  as  contrasted  with  physical,  power. 
Had  the  German  socialists,  in  their  hour  of  despair  in 
1878,  resorted  to  violence,  there  can  be  no  question  but 
what  they  would  have  been  destroyed  root  and  branch. 
Such  resort  was  indeed  the  very  thing  for  which  Bis- 


252  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

marck  in  his  secret  heart  most  ardently  hoped,  for  the 
game  of  blood  and  iron  was  the  one  game  in  which  he 
knew  himself  to  be  supreme.  With  aggravating  per- 
sistency and  marvellous  patience,  the  socialists  kept  to 
the  non-resistant  path,  and  thus  made  certain  their  ulti- 
mate victory.  Liebknecht  summed  up  the  whole  matter 
when  he  said :  "  He  [Bismarck]  has  had  at  his  entire 
disposal  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century,  the 
police,  the  army,  the  capital,  and  the  power  of  the  State 
—  in  brief,  all  the  means  of  mechanical  force.  We  had 
only  our  just  right,  our  firm  conviction,  our  bared 
breasts,  to  oppose  him  with,  and  it  is  we  who  have  con- 
quered! Our  arms  were  the  best.  In  the  course  of 
time  brute  power  must  yield  to  moral  factors." 

IX 

The  experiences  of  the  Quakers,  the  Bahaists  and  the 
socialists  give  us  indication  of  what  can  be  accomplished 
along  the  lines  of  non-resistance  not  only  by  individuals 
but  by  groups  of  individuals.  They  suggest  the  possi- 
bility at  least  of  a  practicable  extension  of  the  non-re- 
sistant principles  to  the  great  field  of  international  re- 
lationships, and  a  satisfactory  answer  therefore  to  those 
basic  questions  of  peace,  security  and  national  idealism 
which  have  been  raised  up  all  anew,  as  we  have  seen,1  by 
the  present  war.  Fortunately,  however,  we  are  not  left 
any  more  to  speculation  in  this  field  than  in  the  other, 
Experimentation  along  these  lines  by  nations  has  of 
course  been  rare  as  compared  with  experimentation  by 

i  See  Chapter  I,  pages  10-18. 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      253 

individuals.     But  instances  exist,  and  are  convincing! 

Take,  for  example,  the  problem  of  international 
peace.  We  have  already  seen  at  considerable  length 
the  utter  failure  of  the  militarist  theory  of  preserving 
peace  by  preparing  for  war.1  Always  have  nations  pre- 
pared for  war,  just  as  the  militarists  have  advised,  and 
always  has  war,  and  not  peace,  been  the  result.  It  is 
obvious,  or  at  least  it  should  be  obvious,  that  there  is  no 
solution  of  our  problem  along  these  lines.  This  being 
the  case,  it  might  well  be  asked  if  it  is  not  possible  that 
there  may  be  "  something  "  in  the  pacifist  theory  of 
disarmament  as  a  guarantee  of  peace  —  especially  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  one  trial  has  been  given  to  this 
theory  with  completely  successful  results ! 

Just  one  hundred  years  ago,  in  1815,  England  and 
America  agreed  to  a  policy  of  almost  complete  dis- 
armament along  the  four  thousand  miles  of  boundary 
line  between  the  United  States  and  Canada.  One  or 
two  ships  of  ridiculously  light  tonnage  and  only  a  single 
gun  each,  were  to  float  upon  the  Great  Lakes,  but  aside 
from  this  the  frontier  was  to  be  open.  Practically 
speaking,  there  was  to  be  absolute  disarmament  so  far 
as  the  relations  between  these  two  great  countries  of 
North  America  were  concerned.  From  that  day  to 
the  present,  this  condition  of  affairs,  happily  achieved 
by  President  Monroe  and  his  minister,  John  Quincy 
Adams,  has  continued;  and  from  that  day  to  the  pres- 
ent, there  has  been  peace.  The  treaty  effecting  this 
arrangement,  be  it  noted,  was  signed  very  shortly  after 

iSee  Chapter  III,  pages  9&-102. 


254  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

the  close  of  the  War  of  1812,  when  feeling  was  bitter 
between  Canada  and  America.  At  various  times,  dis- 
putes of  great  intricacy  and  full  of  fighting  possibili- 
ties have  arisen,  as  witness  the  "  Fifty-four  Forty  or 
Fight  "  crisis  of  the  '40s.  But  in  spite  of  every  diffi- 
culty and  temptation,  peace  has  held  for  an  entire  cen- 
tury. And  who  that  can  reason  at  all  along  the  lines  of 
cause  and  effect,  can  deny  that  the  absence  of  weapons 
of  war  is  one  of  the  chief  reasons,  if  not  actually  the 
sole  reason,  why  war  has  not  come?  Extend  this  policy, 
now,  throughout  the  world.  Let  all  national  frontiers 
be  like  that  of  Canada  and  the  United  States  rather 
than  like  that  of  Germany  and  France.  Let  all  states- 
men take  example  of  Monroe  and  Adams  rather  than  of 
Bismarck.  And  who  can  doubt  that  war  would  be  no 
more?  Peace  will  come  when  we  really  believe  in  peace 
enough  to  walk  steadfastly  in  its  ways.  So,  and  not 
otherwise,  can  the  problem  now  before  us  be  perma- 
nently solved. 

The  one  hundred  years  of  peace  between  America 
and  Canada  might  well  be  taken  also  to  illustrate  the 
one  possible  solution  of  our  second  problem,  that  of 
national  security.  For  where  is  there  an  American 
citizen,  even  on  the  frontier  between  these  two  countries, 
who  feels  any  sense  of  insecurity  because  we  have  no 
forts  on  the  northern  borders  of  Maine  or  Minnesota 
or  Washington,  and  no  dreadnaughts  floating  upon 
Lake  Erie  or  Lake  Superior?  On  the  contrary,  is  not 
every  American  citizen  conscious  of  a  profound  sense  of 
security  as  he  looks  toward  Canada,  for  the  very  reason 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      255 

that  there  is  not  a  gun  upon  that  border  which  menaces 
our  safety?  Compare  the  feelings  of  Americans  to- 
ward Canada  to-day  with  the  feelings  of  Frenchmen 
toward  Germany,  or  Germans  toward  Russia,  two  years 
ago  —  and  we  begin  to  realise,  perhaps,  what  is  the  true 
relation  between  armaments  and  national  security. 

That  there  may  be  no  dodging  of  issues  and  evading 
of  questions,  however,  I  propose  to  go  to  the  extreme 
upon  this  matter,  and  cite  as  an  illustration  of  security 
won  by  non-resistance  methods,  the  case  of  China.  The 
Celestial  Empire  is  usually  taken  by  the  militarists  as 
the  supreme  example  of  the  failure  of  .non-resistance  as 
a  practicable  national  policy.  But  why?  Let  the 
pages  of  history  be  turned  from  the  most  ancient  days 
unto  our  own,  and  where  is  there  a  single  people  which 
has  achieved  such  security  as  the  Chinese?  Egypt, 
Chaldea,  Persia,  Athens,  Macedonia,  Rome,  Spain  — 
all  have  gone.  Not  a  nation  has  endured  beyond  a  cer- 
tain span  of  centuries  —  save  only  China.  And  China 
has  endured,  century  after  century,  seon  after  aeon  — 
and  here  she  stands  to-day,  as  firm,  as  impregnable,  as 
ever.  Invading  armies,  to  be  sure,  have  crossed  her 
borders.  Her  sovereigns  have  been  overthrown,  and 
alien  dynasties  placed  within  her  palaces.  In  recent 
times,  ports  have  been  wrested  from  her  control,  and 
concessions  of  territory  exacted,  by  western  peoples. 
But  how  nearly  have  these  insignificant  details  of  politi- 
cal experience  touched  the  national  life?  How  have  the 
people  of  China  as  a  whole  been  affected  by  a  change 
of  royal  houses  or  the  lifting  of  a  foreign  flag  above 


256  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

Hong-Kong  or  Kiow-Tschau?  The  impressive  fact  is 
not  that  occasional  attacks  have  been  made  upon  her 
territory,  but  that  no  attack  has  touched  the  integrity 
of  her  civilisation.  Chinese  sovereigns  have  fallen, 
Chinese  cities  have  been  stolen,  but  the  Chinese  people 
have  endured,  like  the  sands  that  meet  the  mounting  and 
receding  seas.  They  have  seen  a  score  of  conquerors 
come  and  go,  and  promise  to  see  another  score  of  our 
own  and  later  times  similarly  disappear  —  and  still 
they  remain  the  same !  If  by  security  we  mean  survival 

—  and  what  does   security  mean  if  not  this  ?  —  what 
people  has  ever  stood  the  test  like  these  mysterious  ori- 
entals?    All  other  nations  have  drawn  the  sword,  and 
perished   by    the    sword.     This    nation   has    drawn    no 
sword,  or  has  done  so  only  upon  rare  occasions  under 
the  disastrous  leadership  of  militaristic  dynasties,  and 
behold,  she  lives  !     The  inference  is  indubitable  —  that, 
if  security  is  our  problem,  here  is  our  answer ! 

But  who  would  have  security  at  such  a  price  as  this? 
Who  wants  to  survive,  if  he  must  survive  as  a  China- 
man ?  Is  it  not  better  to  be  a  dead  lion  than  a  live  dog 

—  to  perish  grandly  like  Rome  than  to  exist  forever 
like  China? 

This  raises  at  once  our  third  question  —  that  of  na- 
tional idealism.  And  let  it  be  said  at  once  of  the  pacif- 
ist, that  he  has  no  more  admiration  for  Chinese  civili- 
sation as  such  than  the  militarist !  But  he  quite  fails 
to  understand  wherein  the  peculiar  and  uninspiring 
character  of  this  civilisation  has  anything  essentially 
to  do  with  resistance  or  non-resistance.  The  Egyp- 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      257 

tians,  in  their  worship  of  dead  ancestors,  their  rearing 
of  temples  and  tombs,  their  reverence  for  tradition, 
their  expediential  philosophy,  their  stolidity,  bear  strik- 
ing resemblance  to  the  Chinese  —  but  the  Egyptians 
were  militarists  of  the  fiercest  type.  The  Quakers,  on 
the  other  hand,  in  their  non-resistant  ideas,  are  of  one 
mind  and  heart  with  the  Celestials;  but  one  may  look 
to  the  Quakers  in  vain  for  any  of  those  religious  and 
racial  characteristics  which  set  the  Chinese  apart  from 
other  peoples.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is,  there  is  on 
the  one  hand  no  essential  connection  between  the  char- 
acter of  Chinese  civilisation  and  the  non-resistant  prin- 
ciple; and  on  the  other  hand  nothing  essentially  incon- 
sistent between  any  other  type  of  civilisation  —  our  na- 
tion for  example  —  and  the  non-resistant  principle. 
Non-resistance  may  be  practised  by  any  people  success- 
fully, just  as  its  opposite,  militarism,  has  been  prac- 
tised by  a  long  succession  of  peoples  unsuccessfully. 
What  we  have  in  the  case  of  the  Chinese  is  simply  the  in- 
stance of  one  people,  which,  by  some  fortuitous  con- 
course of  circumstances,  was  induced  to  follow  this  par- 
ticular law  of  life.  That  this  one  people  chanced  to 
exemplify  certain  characteristics  which  do  not  stir  our 
admiration,  matters  nothing  either  one  way  or  the 
other.  The  Quakers,  equally  non-resistant  with  the 
Chinese,  exemplify,  on  the  other  hand,  everything  that 
is  beautiful  in  the  moral  and  spiritual  life;  in  many 
ways  they  must  be  regarded  as  the  very  flower  and 
fruitage  of  our  Christian  civilisation.  To  argue  that 
the  Quakers  are  thus  spiritually  supreme  because  they 


258  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLH 

are  non-resistant  would  be  as  inaccurate  as  to  argue 
the  opposite  of  the  Chinese.  In  neither  case  is  non- 
resistance  a  vital  part  of  the  group-character  under 
discussion.  It  is  as  consistent  with  the  highest  as  well 
as  with  the  lowest  type  —  can  be  made  as  much  a  rule 
of  life  for  the  best  as  for  the  worst  civilisation.  What 
we  have  here  is  simply  a  principle  of  action  which  allows 
whatever  civilisation  may  adopt  it  to  survive  and  thus 
develop  to  the  uttermost  every  element  that  it  chances 
to  contain.  If  the  militarist  principle  of  action  be 
adopted,  development  is  interfered  with,  diverted  from 
its  true  course,  cut  off  untimely  by  repressive,  cor- 
ruptive,  and  destructive  forces  of  a  wholly  extraneous 
character.  Non-resistance  furthers  survival,  and  hence 
gives  a  chance  for  full  fruition.  The  Chinese  and  the 
Quakers,  each  in  their  own  way,  are  finished  products. 
What  they  are  is  all  they  ever  can  be.  Which  means 
from  the  standpoint  of  national  idealism,  that  non-re- 
sistance is  the  "  saving  element." 


Such  are  the  evidences  of  the  practicability  of  non- 
resistance.  It  may  be  contended,  of  course,  that  all 
these  cases  are,  after  all,  exceptions.  But  to  this  full 
answer  has  already  been  given  by  Charles  Sumner  in  his 
oration  already  referred  to  more  than  once.  "  If  it 
be  urged,"  he  says,  "  that  these  instances  are  excep- 
tional I  reply  at  once,  that  it  is  not  so.  They  are  in- 
dubitable evidence  of  the  real  man,  revealing  the  di- 
vinity of  humanity,  out  of  which  goodness,  happiness, 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      259 

true  greatness  can  alone  proceed.  They  disclose  sus- 
ceptibilities confined  to  no  particular  race,  no  special 
period  of  time,  no  narrow  circle  of  knowledge  or  refine- 
ment, but  are  present  wherever  two  or  more  human  be- 
ings come  together,  and  strong  in  proportion  to  their 
virtue  and  intelligence." 

The  instances  here  cited,  so  far  from  being  excep- 
tions, are  definite  illustrations  of  the  workings  of  two 
absolute  spiritual  laws. 

The  first  of  these  laws  is  this  —  that  like  always  pro- 
duces like.  Reason  conduces  to  reason,  hate  stirs  up 
hate,  love  generates  love.  "  Cast  your  bread  upon  the 
waters,"  said  Jesus,  "  and  it  will  come  back  to  you 
again."  "  As  ye  sow,"  said  Paul,  with  the  same  moral 
truth  in  mind,  "  so  shall  ye  also  reap."  Nothing  can  be 
more  certain  than  that,  if  you  distrust  a  man,  you  will 
alienate  him ;  if  you  have  trust  in  a  man,  you  will  en- 
courage him  to  goodwill ;  if  you  love  a  man,  he  will  love 
you  in  return.  This  law  is  all  summed  up  in  the  writ- 
ings of  one  of  the  more  remote  groups  of  early  Chris- 
tians, where  appears  the  remarkable  saying,  "  Love  your 
enemies,  and  you  will  have  none." 

And  the  second  spiritual  law  exemplified  by  this  evi- 
dence is  this  —  that  the  spirit  is  always  superior  to  the 
flesh,  and  the  flesh  therefore  always  subordinate  to  the 
spirit.  Wherein  is  man  superior  to  the  brute  if  not  in 
the  possession  of  those  spiritual  qualities  which  make 
him  in  very  truth  to  be  "  but  a  little  lower  than  the 
angels"?  Wherein  is  "the  wise  man,"  as  Socrates 
called  him,  superior  to  the  ordinary  man,  if  not  in  in- 


260  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

telligence,  reason,  patience,  self-control,  compassion, 
love,  as  contrasted  oftentimes  with  fleetness  of  foot, 
strength  of  muscle,  and  power  of  physical  endurance? 
It  is  spirit  that  elevates,  purifies,  and,  in  the.  final  strug- 
gle, conquers.  To  trust  to  the  spirit,  is  to  trust  to 
nothing  less  than  the  immortal  soul,  the  universe,  God. 
Who  can  stand  before  such  a  marshalling  of  power? 
Robert  Browning  sums  up  all  of  this  great  law  in  his 
poem  Ins  tans  Tyrannus,  where  he  tells  us  how  the  slave 
conquered  his  murderous  master. 

"  Did  I  say  '  without  friend '  ? 

says  the  beaten  master,  referring  to  his  victim,  as  he 
tells  the  tale  of  defeat. 

"  Say  rather,  from  marge  to  blue  marge 
The  whole  sky  grew  his  targe 
With  the  sun's  self  for  visible  boss, 
While  an  arm  ran  across 
Which  the  earth  heaved  beneath  like  a  breast 
Where  the  wretch  was  safe  prest ! 
Do  you  see?    Just  my  vengeance  complete, 
The  man  sprang  to  his  feet, 

Stood  erect,  caught  at  God's  skirts,  and  prayed! 
—  So,  /  was  afraid!" 

XI 

It  is  facts  such  as  these  which  justify  us  in  our  con- 
viction that  non-resistance  is  practicable.  Theoreti- 
cally, as  we  have  just  seen,  it  is  the  embodiment  in 
human  action  of  two  great  laws  —  first,  that  like  pro- 
duces like;  and  secondly,  that  spirit  conquers  flesh. 
Practically  it  is  the  tried  and  tested  rule  of  life  of  those 


PRACTICABILITY  OF  NON-RESISTANCE      361 

who  have  had  faith  to  see,  courage  to  dare,  and  strength 
to  endure.  Of  course  it  goes  without  saying,  that  the 
application  of  the  non-resistant  principle  to  the  hun- 
dred and  one  intricate  problems  of  human  relationships 
is  not  always  successful.  It  fails  only  less  often  than 
the  resort  to  force  as  a  method  of  solution  of  these  same 
problems.  But  in  the  case  of  the  former,  as  not  in  the 
case  of  the  latter,  we  have  a  principle  which  fails  not 
because  of  its  own  essential  falsity,  but  because  of  the 
weakness,  timidity,  halfheartedness  of  those  who  strive 
to  put  it  into  practice.  Not  too  frequently  can  we  re- 
mind ourselves  of  the  counsel  of  "  Golden-Rule  "  Jones 
of  Toledo,  Ohio.  "  Live  always  by  the  Golden  Rule," 
was  his  word.  "When  (it)  will  not  work,  it  is  not  the 
fault  of  the  Rule,  but  because  one  does  not  know  just 
how  to  work  it."  l  Of  itself,  "  love  never  faileth." 
Those  who  live  by  this  law  have  the  unseen  on  their  side. 
The  very  stars  in  their  courses  fight  for  them.  God, 
in  his  infinite  majesty,  stands  up  and  makes  their  cause 
his  own. 

"  O  ye  of  little  faith  " —  think  well  ere  ye  scoff  and 
turn  away  !  Not  yet  has  all  been  learned,  that  "  fools  " 
should  not  appear  to  confound  the  great  and  wise. 
Would  ye  not  better  pray,  that  faith  may  yet  be  yours, 
to  save  the  world  new  terrors  and  old  fates? 

i  See  Brand  Whitlock,  in  Forty  Years  of  It,  page  215. 

Note:  Is  there  no  qualification  to  this  doctrine  of  practicable 
non-resistance  ?  —  None  in  itself !  Were  men  so  minded,  they 
could  practise  it  to-morrow  with  complete  success,  and  to  the 
indescribable  joy  of  the  world.  But  that  they  are  not  so  minded, 
is  evident.  "  Of  course,  all  that  I  have  been  saying,"  writes  Mr. 
Bertrand  Russell,  in  a  plea  for  non-resistance  in  his  Justice  in 


262  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

War  Time,  "  is  fantastic,  degrading,  and  out  of  touch  with  reality. 
I  have  been  assuming  that  men  are  to  some  extent  guided  by 
reason,  that  their  actions  are  directed  to  ends  such  as  '  life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.'  This  is  not  the  case."  1 
In  other  words,  it  is  an  unescapable  fact  that  men  have  never 
been,  and  are  not  yet,  ready  to  practise  the  precepts  of  "  love 
to  God  and  man "  which  they  profess.  They  persist,  in  the  last 
extremity,  in  reliance  upon  force  for  the  gaining  of  their  ends. 
They  will  not  see,  they  do  not  welcome,  the  gospel  here  laid  down. 
Therefore,  in  pursuit  of  this  unqualified  ideal  of  good,  must 
qualification  in  practice  be  recognised  as  the  condition  of  ultimate 
fulfilment  —  qualification,  it  should  be  said,  not  on  the  part  of  the 
single  man,  who  must  be  wholly  faithful,  but  on  the  part  of  groups 
of  men  organised  into  social  entities.  In  relations  between  in- 
dividuals, this  qualification  is  found  in  the  police  system,  which 
takes  from  the  hands  of  the  private  citizen  all  agencies  of  force, 
and  restricts  their  possession  to  a  picked  group  of  men,  charged 
to  use  them  for  the  benefit  not  of  themselves  but  of  the  com- 
munity. A  disarmed  citizenry  leads  gradually  to  a  disarmed 
police;  the  disarmed  police,  to  a  gradual  substitution  in  govern- 
ment of  the  rule  of  consent  for  the  rule  of  force;  and  the  rule  of 
consent  to  a  gradual  establishment  of  the  non-resistant  ideal  in 
social  action.  Similar,  I  believe,  must  be  the  course  of  evolution 
toward  the  unqualified  non-resistant  ideal  in  relations  between 
states.  Not  by  preparations  for  war,  not  by  alliances  offensive 
and  defensive,  not  by  balances  of  power,  not  by  leagues  to  en- 
force peace,  will  the  way  to  peace  be  found.  Rather  must  the 
arms  of  separate  states  be  transferred  completely  to  an  inter- 
national police  force,  charged  by  an  international  tribunal  of  ex- 
ecutive administration  to  employ  these  arms  not  for  the  benefit 
of  itself,  or  of  any  nation  or  group  of  nations,  but  for  the  better 
ordering  of  mankind.  What  has  been  accomplished  in  the  United 
States,  in  relations  between  states,  must  be  accomplished  in  the 
world  at  large,  in  relations  between  nations.  By  such  a  method 
of  compromise,  shameful  and  yet  necessary,  will  the  area  within 
which  force  can  be  operated  be  ever  more  and  more  narrowly 
confined,  until  at  last,  without  as  already  within  enlightened 
communities  of  our  own  time,  it  will  disappear  altogether  before 
the  universal  reign  of  reason  and  goodwill.  Mr.  Russell,  in  the 
essay  to  which  I  have  referred,  names  one  condition  as  a  justifi- 
cation of  the  use  of  force.  It  is  just  this  condition  which  I 
would  rather  define  as  the  one  qualification  of  our  non-resistant 
ideal,  necessitated  by  the  imperfect  spiritual  development  of  men. 
"  The  use  of  force  is  justifiable,"  he  says,  "  when  it  is  ordered 
in  accordance  with  law  by  a  neutral  authority  in  the  general 
interest."  2 

1  See  page  52. 

2  See  Justice  in  War  Time,  page  41. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
IS  WAR  EVER  JUSTIFIABLE? 


"The  notion  of  a  right  to  go  to  war  cannot  lie  properly  con- 
ceived as  an  element  in  the  law  of  nations.  For  it  would  be 
equivalent  to  a  right  to  determine  what  is  just,  not  by  universal 
external  laws  limiting  the  freedom  of  every  individual  alike,  but 
through  one-sided  maxims  that  operate  by  means  of  force.  If 
such  a  right  be  conceived  at  all  it  would  amount,  in  fact,  to  this: 
that  in  the  case  of  men  who  are  so  disposed  it  is  quite  right  for 
them  to  destroy  and  devour  each  other,  and  thus  to  find  perpetual 
peace  only  in  the  wide  grave  which  is  to  cover  all  the  abomination 
of  the  deeds  of  violence  and  their  authors ! " —  Immanuel  Kant,  in 
Eternal  Peaee. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

IS    WAR    EVER    JUSTIFIABLE? 

THE  acceptance  of  non-resistance  as  a  working  prin- 
ciple of  life,  and  the  belief  in  its  entire  practicability, 
still  leave  unanswered  certain  phases  of  the  question  of 
international  war.  On  general  principles,  of  course, 
the  non-resistant  can  have  nothing  to  do  with  armed 
conflict  of  any  kind.  But  as  there  are  exceptions  to  all 
rules,  may  there  not  be  an  exception  to  this  rule?  Is 
not  war,  in  other  words,  sometimes  inevitable  and  there- 
fore justifiable  even  for  the  non-resistant,  just  to  the 
extent  that  relations  between  nations,  unlike  relations 
between  individuals,  have  not  yet  been  ordered  and 
moralised?  Does  not  the  undeniable  assertion  of  Gen- 
eral Bernhardi,  in  his  Germany  and  the  Next  War,  that 
the  absence  of  centralised  and  supreme  authority  in  the 
world  at  large,  leaves  to  each  nation  the  high  task  of 
defending  its  own  integrity  and  finding  its  own  "  place 
in  the  sun,"  point  to  a  situation  which  makes  war  at 
times  a  duty  as  stern  as  it  is  terrible?  What  about  the 
Northern  states  after  the  firing  upon  Sumter?  What 
about  Belgium  in  August,  1914?  What  about 
America,  if  Germany  had  defied  President  Wilson  after 
the  sinking  of  the  Lusitania?  Do  not  occasional  condi- 
tions such  as  these  make  war  not  only  justifiable  but 
honourable?  To  the  discussion  of  this  question  we  now 
turn. 

265 


266  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 


War  between  the  nations  of  the  earth  is  on  the  de- 
fensive to-day  as  it  has  never  been  before.  There  was 
a  time,  not  so  very  long  ago,  when  war  was  glorified 
quite  apart  from  any  of  the  particular  circumstances 
of  its  precipitation,  and  the  warrior  extolled  as  among 
the  bravest  and  noblest  of  mankind.  Bait  now  all  this 
is  changed.  War  to-day  is  almost  universally  regarded 
as  a  degradation,  and  the  maker  of  war  an  enemy  of  the 
race.  So  at  least  we  discovered  when  the  Great  War 
burst  upon  the  affrighted  world.  Here  for  the  first 
time  was  a  war  for  which  nobody  was  willing  to  assume 
responsibility  — "  a  foundling,"  to  use  the  striking 
phrase  of  David  Starr  Jordan,  to  which  no  one  of  the 
nations  involved  would  give  refuge.  Here  was  a  war 
which  was  hailed  from  one  end  of  the  earth  to  the  other, 
not  with  shouts  of  exultation,  but  with  the  curses  of 
men  and  the  tears  of  women.  Here  was  a  war  which 
brought  down  upon  the  heads  of  those  who  are  rightly 
or  wrongly  charged  with  responsibility,  such  a  tide  of 
hatred  and  execration  as  has  come  upon  no  individual, 
or  group  of  individuals,  since  the  passing  of  Bonaparte 
and  his  marshals.  Nothing  could  be  more  remarkable, 
and  at  the  same  time  more  encouraging,  than  the  ex- 
pressions of  detestation  and  horror  which  everywhere 
appeared  when  it  was  first  realised  what  had  come  upon 
the  world.  Newspaper  cartoons  and  editorials,  maga- 
zine articles,  sermons  and  addresses,  all  joined  in  de- 
nouncing the  conflict  as  an  unspeakable  outrage  and 


IS  WAR  EVER  JUSTICIABLE?  267 

in  calling  upon  those  in  places  of  authority  to  secure 
peace.  Especially  significant  were  the  utterances  of 
the  poets,  who  sounded  not  songs  of  battle,  but  almost 
without  exception  the  sad  refrains  of  dirges  and 
lamentations.  Rudyard  Kipling's  famous  lines,  as  hard 
as  the  "  steel  and  stone  "  of  which  he  chanted,  and  John 
Masefield's  elegy,  as  pathetic  as  that  written  in  an 
earlier  age  in  a  country  churchyard,  are  regarded  not 
without  good  reason  as  the  typical  expressions  of  the 
hour. 

While  it  is  true,  however,  that  war  in  general  is 
condemned  in  our  time  as  it  has  never  before  been 
condemned  in  human  history,  it  is  to  be  noted,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  war  in  the  case  of  each  par- 
ticular nation  is  justified  to-day  in  exactly  the  same 
way  that  it  has  always  been  justified  in  the  past.  The 
defence  is  not  quite  so  jubilant  as  formerly,  but  it  is 
a  defence  all  the  same.  Englishmen  of  course  hate  war 
in  general  as  much  as  Germans,  and  Germans  as  much 
as  Frenchmen.  Mr.  Asquith  regards  this  particular 
war  as  inexcusable  and  unnecessary  as  does  the  Crown 
Prince  of  the  German  Empire  or  the  Czar  of  all  the 
Russias.  But  England  is  as  certain  that  Germany  and 
Austria  are  to  blame  for  the  struggle  as  the  Teuton 
states  are  certain  that  England  and  her  allies  are  to 
blame ;  and  the  individual  Englishman  is  as  eager  to  fight 
for  the  banner  of  St.  George  as  the  individual  German 
for  the  Prussian  Eagle.  War  is  undoubtedly  wrong, 
but  this  particular  war  is  undoubtedly  right  for  Eng- 
lishmen, or  Frenchmen,  or  Germans,  or  Belgians,  as  the 


268  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

case  may  be.  Only  in  the  United  States  has  there  been 
a  condemnation  of  the  business  which  is  specific  as  well 
as  general,  but  this  is  only  because  we  are  altogether 
outside  of  the  area  of  battle.  Professor  John  Erskine, 
of  Columbia  University,  is  perfectly  right,  as  events 
since  the  Lusitania  outrage  abundantly  attest,  when  he 
points  out,  in  reference  to  this  fact,  that  "  there  can  be 
little  question  that  if  the  United  States  were  actually 
in  the  conflict  this  .  .  .  attitude  would  largely  disap- 
pear." That  is  to  say,  we  condemn  war  "  for  the  other 
fellow,"  but  we  justify  it  so  soon  as  we  ourselves  are 
challenged  to  take  up  arms ! 

Now  it  is  this  extraordinary  fact  that  war  is  uni- 
versally abhorred  and  denounced  to-day,  so  long  as  it 
is  regarded  by  itself  and  is  thus  judged  strictly  upon 
its  own  merits,  but  speedily  wins  the  approval  of  the 
citizens  of  any  one  state  so  soon  as  it  becomes  involved 
in  any  way  with  the  interests  or  honour  of  that  state, 
which  justifies  the  searching  question  as  to  whether  war 
is  ever  justifiable.  It  is  all  well  and  good  to  condemn 
war  in  the  abstract  as  "  the  sum  of  all  villainy,"  but 
what  avails  it  if  war  straightway  becomes  the  sum  of  all 
virtue  just  the  moment  it  becomes  our  war  as  con- 
trasted with  some  one  else's  war?  It  is  profitable,  no 
doubt,  for  the  peacemaker  to  work  for  peace  when 
"  wars  and  rumours  of  wars,"  are  far  removed  from  the 
bounds  of  possibility,  but  what  becomes  of  the  profit  if 
the  peacemaker  abandons  his  cause  the  very  moment 
that  war  becomes  a  contingency  for  the  nation  to  which 
he  belongs  and  in  which  alone  he  has  any  influence? 


IS  WAR  EVER  JUSTIFIABLE?  269 

It  is  admirable  to  denounce  war  in  general,  but  how 
much  "  forwarder  "  are  we  if  denunciation  of  war  in 
general  can  be  changed  into  approval  of  this  particular 
war  the  very  instant  that  this  particular  war  is  immi- 
nent? Somewhere  there  is  a  fundamental  fallacy. 
War,  like  slavery,  cannot  be  wrong  in  one  place  and 
right  in  another  place.  War,  like  religious  persecution, 
cannot  be  justifiable  for  Englishmen  and  unjustifiable 
for  Germans.  One  and  the  same  thing  cannot  be  right 
and  wrong,  just  and  unjust,  at  one  and  the  same  time. 
Here  in  the  fact  of  war  do  we  have  a  perfectly  simple 
and  well-understood  social  phenomenon.  It  has  pre- 
sented the  same  general  characteristics  and  followed  the 
same  processes  of  action  from  the  ancient  day  of  clubs 
and  stones  to  the  modern  day  of  Zeppelins  and  super- 
dreadnaughts.  Those  who  engage  in  it,  on  one  side 
or  the  other,  engage  in  identically  the  same  work  of 
plunder,  pillage,  destruction,  and  murder.  Now  is  this 
thing  right,  or  is  it  wrong?  Is  it  justifiable  or  is  it  un- 
justifiable? Study  it  from  any  standpoint  —  judge  it 
on  its  own  merits  —  put  aside  all  the  ambitions,  preju- 
dices, and  fears  of  national  feeling  —  and  what  must 
the  verdict  be ! 

II 

Before  getting  to  the  real  issue  which  is  involved  in 
this  inquiry,  it  will  first  be  necessary  to  clear  away 
some  perplexing  and  enticing  illusions  which  have  com- 
plicated this  question  of  the  justifiability  of  war  more 
or  less  from  the  beginning.  Only  as  we  dissipate  these 


270  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

illusions,  and  thus  set  the  mind  free  from  the  entangle- 
ments of  self-deception,  can  we  see  things  as  they  must 
be  seen,  with  an  eye  that  is  "  single  "  and  therefore  full 
of  light. 

In  the  first  place,  let  us  note  that  war  cannot  be 
justified  on  the  ground  that  it  generates  within  the 
human  heart  the  heroic  virtues.  I  am  not  one  of  those 
who  are  inclined  to  extol  the  moral  influences  of  war. 
I  recognise  the  heroism  of  the  sentinel  who  keeps  guard 
in  the  filthy  trenches,  of  the  sailor  who  watches  nightly 
on  the  frozen  deck  of  the  battleship,  of  the  woman  who 
waits  in  agony  of  spirit  in  the  lonely  home  for  news, 
good  or  bad,  of  her  beloved.  But  I  recognise,  also, 
that  for  every  one  heart  that  is  stirred  by  pure  and 
noble  emotion  of  this  kind,  there  are  a  hundred  hearts 
that  are  stirred  by  the  blackest  passions  to  which  the 
human  breast  is  heir.  War  turns  men  not  into  angels 
but  into  devils !  The  path  of  war  is  strewn  not  with 
the  flowers  of  love  but  with  the  ashes  of  hate !  Caesar 
bestrides  the  battlefield,  and  not  Christ !  Nevertheless, 
even  if  it  were  true  that  war  developed  the  heroic  vir- 
tues in  exactly  the  way  described  by  the  rapturous 
eulogists  of  war,  still  would  it  be  true  that  this  would 
offer  no  adequate  justification  of  this  horror.  A  great 
fire  in  New  York  would  undoubtedly  produce  prodigies 
of  valour,  but  this  fact  would  not  justify  the  Fire  De- 
partment in  not  doing  its  utmost  to  extinguish  it.  A 
plague  of  cholera  would  generate  such  devotion  and  self- 
sacrifice  on  the  part  of  physicians  and  nurses  as 
would  baffle  adequate  description,  but  the  Health  De- 


IS  WAR  EVER  JUSTIFIABLE?  271 

partment  would  not  feel  justified  for  this  reason  in 
starting  and  maintaining  an  epidemic.  Most  of  the 
noblest  deeds  in  human  history  are  to  be  found  in  the 
annals  of  martyrdom  —  we  would  not  willingly  sur- 
render the  record  of  these  deeds !  —  and  yet  this  does 
not  tempt  us  to  justify  the  persecution  which  produced 
the  martyrs:  There  is  no  plainer  witness  to  the  essen- 
tial divinity  of  the  human  spirit  than  its  unfaltering 
courage  in  the  face  of  disaster,  and  its  abiding  faith 
in  the  midst  of  evil.  But  disaster  still  remains  disaster, 
and  evil  evil,  even  though  the  soul  can  make  itself  trium- 
phant over  both.  To  look  at  the  great  memorial 
in  Boston  to  Robert  Gould  Shaw  and  his  Negro  regi- 
ment is  to  feel  one's  pulse  quicken  and  one's  heart 
refreshed.  But  these  soldiers  marching  away  to  heroic 
death  no  more  justify  the  Civil  War  than  "  the  noble 
army  of  martyrs  "  perishing  in  the  Roman  arena  justi- 
fies the  persecutions  of  Nero. 

In  the  second  place,  war  cannot  be  justified  by  the 
sincere  motives,  generous  impulses  and  high  ideals  which 
oftentimes  lie  behind  it.  Again  and  again  we  are  per- 
suaded to  characterise  a  certain  war  as  "  true  and 
righteous  altogether  "  because  the  men  who  went  into 
it,  on  the  side  in  which  we  .happen  to  be  interested,  were 
moved  by  the  noblest  sentiments  and  were  serving  the 
best  interests  of  humanity.  Thus  we  justify  the  Civil 
Wars  in  England  because  Cromwell  and  his  Roundheads 
represent  one  of  the  most  remarkable  moral  movements 
in  modern  history.  We  justify  the  American  Revolu- 
tion because  the  colonists  were  battling  unselfishly  for 


272  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

the  great  principle  of  political  and  social  liberty.  We 
justify  the  American  Civil  War  because  the  "boys  in 
blue  "  laid  down  their  lives  for  the  holy  purpose  of 
saving  the  Republic  and  emancipating  the  slave.  And 
so,  at  the  present  moment,  most  Americans  are  justi- 
fying the  war  now  being  fought  by  the  Allies  on  the 
ground  that  England,  France,  and  Russia  are  protect- 
ing civilisation  from  the  menace  of  German  militarism. 
In  all  of  these  instances,  undoubtedly,  we  have  wars 
fought  from  the  noblest  motives  and  with  the  most  un- 
selfish desires.  But  how  far  this  comes  from  justify- 
ing war  in  itself  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  we  find  ex- 
actly these  same  motives  and  desires  present  in  the 
hearts  of  those  against  whom  our  chosen  heroes  were 
fighting.  The  Cavaliers  of  Charles  were  every  whit  as 
sincere  as  the  Roundheads  of  Oliver  Cromwell.  Lord 
North  and  the  English  Tories  fought  the  American  col- 
onists in  the  honest  conviction  that  these  colonists  were 
traitors  to  the  king  and  enemies  therefore  of  the  Brit- 
ish realm.  The  "  boys  in  gray  "  died  as  gallantly  as 
the  *'  boys  in  blue  "  for  a  cause  which  was  to  them  as 
precious.  And  in  the  war  now  being  fought  in  Europe 
there  is  nothing  finer  than  the  absolute  devotion  of  a 
united  people  to  what  they  regard  as  the  sacred  cause 
of  the  Fatherland.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that 
motives  apply  to  persons  and  not  at  all  to  events.  No 
mistake  is  more  frequent,  and  yet  no  mistake  should  be 
more  obvious,  than  that  of  carrying  over  the  question 
of  motive  from  the  actor  to  the  action,  and  thus  of 
confusing  the  intrinsic  merits  of  the  former  with  the 


IS  WAR  EVER  JUSTIFIABLE? 

intrinsic  merits  of  the  latter.  No  social  phenomenon, 
least  of  all  one  which  involves  the  happiness  and  lives 
of  millions  of  human  beings,  can  be  justified  by  the  mo- 
tives of  the  participants  therein.  Human  sacrifice  was 
for  centuries  practised  by  men  and  women  as  a  religious 
rite  and  therefore  in  the  noblest  spirit  of  devotion. 
Persecution  has  again  and  again  been  visited  upon  help- 
less victims  by  men  whose  motives  were  as  unselfish  and 
idealistic  as  those  which  animated  the  breast  of  Marcus 
Aurelius,  when  he  drew  his  sword  against  the  Chris- 
tians. Most  of  the  enormities  which  have  character- 
ised the  present-day  struggle  between  capital  and 
labour  have  been  committed  on  both  sides  by  men  who 
were  sincerely  convinced  that  they  were  serving  the 
best  interests  of  humanity.  The  motives  involved  in 
these  dreadful  acts  may  justify  the  persons  performing 
them,  as  I  have  said,  but  they  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  justifiability  of  the  acts  themselves.  The  present 
war,  like  human  sacrifice  or  religious  persecution,  must 
be  justified,  if  at  all,  for  reasons  quite  apart  from  the 
motives  of  Englishmen,  Frenchmen,  Belgians,  Aus- 
trians,  Germans,  which  are  in  all  cases,  I  have  no  doubt, 
equally  fine.  And  what  is  true  of  this  war  is  true  of 
every  war  that  has  ever  been  fought. 

In  the  third  place,  it  is  important  to  note  that  war 
cannot  be  justified  by  the  beneficent  results  which  it 
may  achieve.  That  great  good,  both  for  nations  and 
individuals,  has  at  times  been  the  consequence  of  war, 
is  beyond  question.  Marathon  repelled  the  barbaric 
hordes  of  Asia  from  the  shores  of  Greece ;  Charles  Mar- 


274  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

tel  saved  Christianity  from  being  overwhelmed  by 
Mohammedanism  at  the  battle  of  Tours ;  the  Crusades 
brought  light  out  of  darkness  and  made  possible  the 
Protestant  Reformation ;  the  wars  of  the  Netherlands 
destroyed  the  tyranny  of  Spain  and  led  the  way  to  the 
great  achievement  of  religious  liberty ;  the  American 
Revolution  is  a  landmark  in  the  history  of  political 
democracy ;  and  a  by-product  of  the  American  Civil 
War  was  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves.  Facts  like 
these  inevitably  tempt  us  to  believe  that,  however  it 
may  be  with  wars  in  general,  these  particular  wars  at 
least  stand  justified  by  their  results.  A  little  careful 
thought,  however,  will  quickly  show  how  impossible  is 
such  a  conclusion.  The  "  Black  Death,"  which  de- 
stroyed one-half  of  the  population  of  Europe  in  a  single 
year,  brought  to  the  surviving  workers  the  indubitable 
boon  of  high  wages  and  abundant  labour;  the  Great 
Fire  of  London  wiped  out  the  last  vestiges  of  the  Great 
Plague ;  the  Reign  of  Terror  sealed  the  fate  of  the 
Ancien  Regime  and  marks  the  opening  chapter  of  the 
history  of  European  liberty;  the  Chicago  Fire  turned 
a  shabby  frontier  town  into  a  modern  municipality ; 
the  sinking  of  the  Titanic  made  ocean  travel  for  the 
first  time  reasonably  secure;  but  who  of  us  would 
argue,  on  this  basis  of  results,  that  these  dreadful  dis- 
asters are  therefore  justified?  Who  of  us  would  be 
willing  to  have  them  repeated  for  the  sake  of  securing 
further  beneficent  results  of  the  same  kind?  These 
events  undoubtedly  prove  that  good  is  stronger  than 
all  ill  —  that  this  universe  is  so  divinely  constituted 


IS  WAR  EVER  JUSTIFIABLE?  275 

that,  in  the  long  run,  bane  can  work  nothing  but  bless- 
ing —  that  "  there  is  a  power  not  ourselves  "  which 
brings  righteousness  out  of  evil,  security  out  of  disas- 
ter, life  out  of  death  —  that  God  can  make  the  igno- 
rance, the  folly,  even  the  wrath  of  men,  to  praise  him ! 
But  they  do  not  prove  that  evil  is  in  itself  anything 
but  evil,  or  crime  in  itself  anything  but  crime.  If  war 
sometimes  works  good,  it  is  not  because  it  is  itself  ever 
good,  but  rather  because  God  lives  to  confound  the 
fury  of  men,  and  men  live  to  prove  themselves  better 
than  their  own  weaknesses  and  sins  ! 

ni 

Having  cleared  away  these  two  or  three  illu- 
sions by  which  the  minds  of  men  have  ever  been  beset 
in  their  discussion  of  this  problem  of  the  justifiability 
of  war,  we  are  now  ready,  perhaps,  to  consider  the  im- 
mediate issue  which  is  before  us.  War,  as  we  have  just 
seen,  cannot  be  justified  by  the  heroic  virtues  which  it 
may  generate  in  the  hearts  of  men  —  by  the  noble  mo- 
tives of  which  it  may  be  the  consecrated  expression  — 
or  by  the  beneficent  results  which  upon  occasion  it  may 
unquestionably  produce  in  society  at  large.  No  one 
of  these  considerations  comes  anywhere  near  to  what 
may  be  called  the  real  heart  of  the  problem.  For  if 
the  phenomenon  of  war  is  to  be  justified  at  all,  it  must 
be  justified,  in  the  last  analysis,  like  every  other  social 
phenomenon,  simply  and  solely  by  its  relation  to  the 
great  fact  of  life  —  by  the  contribution  which  it  makes, 
or  does  not  make,  to  the  wholeness  of  man's  existence 


276  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

upon  the  earth.  "  I  come  that  they  might  have  life, 
and  have  it  more  abundantly?"  said  Jesus,  defining  the 
standard  by  which  he  wanted  his  career  to  be  meas- 
ured. "  Die  when  I  may,"  said  Abraham  Lincoln,  to 
his  friend,  Joshua  Speed,  "  I  want  it  said  of  me  by 
those  who  know  me  best,  that  I  always  plucked  a  thistle 
and  planted  a  flower  where  I  thought  a  flower  would 
grow." 

"  Give  me  the  power  to  labour  for  mankind, 

Make  me  the  mouth  for  such  as  cannot  speak; 

Eyes  let  me  be  to  groping  men  and  blind; 
A  conscience  to  the  base;  and  to  the  weak 

Let  me  be  hands  and  feet;  and  to  the  foolish,  mind; 
And  lead  still  further  on  such  as  thy  kingdom  seek." 

said  Theodore  Parker,  in  his  sonnet,  entitled  Aspira- 
tion. Here  are  different,  and  yet  very  similar,  expres- 
sions of  that  one  permanent  idea,  which  is  as  applicable 
to  social  institutions  and  processes  as  to  individual 
human  beings,  that  the  test  of  life  is  nothing  other 
than  life  —  that  life  is  itself  the  end  and  aim  of  life  — 
that  the  justification  of  one  life  is  the  service  of  an- 
other! Does  this  particular  man  bring  richer,  fuller, 
more  abundant  life  to  other  men  —  planting  two  blades 
of  grass,  perhaps,  where  only  one  grew  before?  Then 
is  he  "  a  good  and  faithful  servant,"  however  humble 
his  name  or  lowly  his  station.  Does  this  particular 
institution  —  the  state,  the  church,  the  school,  the  cor- 
poration, the  labour  union  —  foster,  enlarge,  liberate, 
ennoble  the  lives  of  men?  Then  does  it  stand  justified, 
and  rightly  call  for  protection  and  support.  Does  this 


IS  WAR  EVER  JUSTIFIABLE?  277 

social  process  or  plan  of  social  action  —  monogamous 
marriage,  representative  government,  manhood  suf- 
frage, restricted  immigration,  public  worship  —  add  to 
the  health,  happiness,  integrity,  efficiency,  beauty,  of 
human  living?  Then  is  it  also  justified,  and  entitled 
therefore  to  men's  favour.  But  does  this  man,  or  in- 
stitution, or  social  process,  weaken  life,  enslave  it,  de- 
grade it,  impoverish  it,  destroy  it?  Then  does  it 
stand  condemned,  whatever  may  be  its  merits  from  other 
and  different  points  of  view.  Life,  after  all,  is  the 
only  thing  that  counts  in  this  world  of  men  —  this  uni- 
verse of  God.  The  test  of  Christ  is  universal  and  in- 
fallible. 

" 'Tis  life  of  which  our  nerves  are  scant; 
O  life,  not  death,  for  which  we  pant; 
More  life  and  fuller  that  we  want." 

This,  as  Tennyson  has  put  it  so  vividly  in  these  lines 
from  The  Two  Voices,  is  the  supreme  and  perfect  aim. 
Anything  which  serves  this  aim  is  thereby  justified  and 
perpetuated.  Anything  which  fails,  for  any  reason,  to 
serve  this  aim,  is  thereby  condemned,  and  sooner  or 
later  must  be 

"  cast  as  rubbish  to  the  void." 

Now  one  only  has  to  define  this  fundamental  stand- 
ard of  justification,  in  order  to  see  at  once  what  must 
be  our  answer  to  the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  war 
is  ever  justifiable.  War  is  the  exact  antithesis  of  "  life 
more  abundantly " —  the  enemy  of  everything  that 
makes  for  life  and  the  friend  of  everything  that  makes 


278  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

for  death !  "  What  is  the  net  purpose  and  upshot  of 
war,"  asks  Thomas  Carlyle,  in  an  unforgetable  pass- 
age. "  To  my  own  knowledge,  for  example,  there 
dwell  in  the  British  village  of  Dumdrudge  some  five 
hundred  souls.  From  these  there  are  selected,  during 
the  French  war,  say  thirty  able-bodied  men.  Dum- 
drudge at  her  own  expense  has  suckled  and  nursed 
them ;  she  has  fed  them  up  to  manhood  and  even  trained 
them  to  crafts,  so  that  one  can  weave,  another  build, 
another  hammer.  Nevertheless,  amid  much  weeping 
and  swearing,  they  are  selected,  all  dressed  in  red,  and 
shipped  away  some  two  thousand  miles,  or  say  only  to 
the  south  of  Spain,  and  fed  there  till  wanted.  And 
now  to  that  same  spot  in  Spain  are  thirty  similar 
French  artisans  from  a  French  Dumdrudge  in  like  man- 
ner wending ;  till  at  length,  after  infinite  effort,  the  two 
parties  come  into  actual  juxtaposition;  and  thirty 
stand  fronting  thirty,  each  with  a  gun  in  his  hand. 
Straightway  the  word  '  Fire  '  is  given,  and  they  blow 
the  souls  out  of  one  another ;  and  in  place  of  sixty 
brisk,  useful  craftsmen  the  world  has  sixty  dead  car- 
casses which  it  must  bury."  Multiply  this  number, 
now,  by  a  hundred,  a  thousand,  yea  a  hundred  thou- 
sand —  add  the  horrors  of  bayonet  charges,  mine  ex- 
plosions, artillery  bombardments,  frozen  trenches,  and 
hospitals  —  and  we  begin  to  have  a  suggestion  at  least 
of  the  meaning  of  war  in  its  relation  to  the  great  reality 
of  life. 

And  this  is  only  the  beginning!     For  what  accom- 
panies this  slaughter  of  one  body  of  men  by  another? 


IS  WAR  EVER  JUSTIFIABLE?  279 

If  the  killing  of  the  soldiers  were  all,  we  might  conceiv- 
ably become  reconciled  to  war  as  sometimes  inevitable 
and  justifiable.  But  along  with  this  business  of  killing 
those  who  are  set  apart  for  this  especial  sacrifice,  there 
goes  the  wasting  of  harvest  fields,  the  burning  of  great 
cities  with  their  busy  streets  and  peaceful  homes,  the 
outraging  of  women  and  little  children,  the  starving 
and  scattering  of  unnumbered  millions  of  the  young, 
the  aged,  the  weak,  the  crippled,  whose  only  crime  is 
that  they  stand  in  the  pathways  of  contending  armies. 
Look  at  the  situation  in  Europe  to-day  —  Belgium 
wasted  from  end  to  end,  thousands  of  her  unoffending 
civilians  slaughtered  or  outlawed,  and  her  people  gen- 
erally only  saved  from  starvation  by  the  kindly  inter- 
vention of  neutral  states  —  Poland,  East  Prussia, 
Galicia,  Serbia,  similarly  devastated,  in  an  even  worse 
condition  of  misery  because  of  their  remoteness  from 
sources  of  possible  relief  —  and  now,  as  the  crowning 
iniquity  of  all,  Germany  and  England  each  deliberately 
setting  themselves  to  the  monstrous  task  of  starving  an 
entire  population  as  a  legitimate  expedient  of  warfare ! 
Look  at  such  things  as  these,  and  then  let  us  ask  our- 
selves where  is  the  justification  of  war  from  the  single 
standpoint  of  life  as  the  aim  of  life? 

Nor  is  this  the  end !  For  thus  far  we  have  spoken 
only  of  the  physical  horrors  of  international  conflict. 
But  life  certainly  is  more  than  bread,  or  raiment,  or 
the  sweet  flesh  of  the  body.  Life  involves  also,  and 
more  truly,  the  minds  and  souls  of  men  —  their 
thoughts,  affections,  ideals,  aspirations,  hopes,  dreams 


280  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

and  faiths.  And  here  do  we  find  that  war  is  as  ruth- 
less a  destroyer  as  in  the  lower  and  more  obvious  realm 
of  things  material.  War  burns  the  library  of  Alex- 
andria and  the  University  of  Louvain.  War  destroys 
the  fair  columns  of  the  Parthenon,  and  smites  the  tow- 
ers of  the  Rheims  cathedral.  War  silences  music, 
paralyses  art  and  literature,  and  turns  "  the  towers  of 
learning  into  new  Babels,  so  that  our  physicists  and 
geographers,  our  economists  and  biologists  and  dram- 
atists, speak  in  strange  and  fearful  tongues."  War 
strangles  truth,  destroys  righteousness,  and  makes  of 
hate  a  new  virtue  of  the  soul.  War  makes  "  were- 
wolves of  neighbouring  peoples  in  their  imaginations  of 
each  other " —  sets  faithful  against  faithful,  priest 
against  priest,  church  against  church  —  turns  a  world 
of  friends  and  neighbours  into  a  world  of  outlanders, 
aliens  and  foes.  War  violates  all  the  finer  sensibilities 
of  the  race  —  weakens  the  claims  of  mercy  and  justice 
upon  the  soul  —  stamps  the  growing  generations  with 
barbarism  —  fosters  national  prejudices,  religious  an- 
tagonisms, and  racial  animosities.  War  makes  de- 
structive and  not  constructive  the  work  of  human 
hands  —  makes  hate  and  not  love  the  proudest  posses- 
sion of  human  hearts  —  makes  death  and  not  life  the 
chief  end  of  man.  War  destroys  the  body ;  but,  worse 
than  this,  it  mutilates  the  spirit,  so  that  men,  even 
though  they  live,  are  men  no  longer,  but  animals  seek- 
ing whom  they  may  devour  and  what  they  may  destroy. 
Nor  is  this  the  end !  For  the  ravages  of  war  cease 
not  with  the  laying  down  of  arms.  War  destroys  not 


IS  WAR  EVER  JUSTIFIABLE?  281 

only  the  thousands  of  men  who  fall  and  rot  upon  the 
field  of  battle,  but  the  unnumbered  thousands  as  well 
who  would  inevitably  have  sprung  from  the  loins  of 
these  men  had  they  been  left  to  walk  the  ways  of  peace 
and  propagate  their  kind  in  love.  War  picks  to  be  its 
victims  the  young  men  who  are  without  blemish  —  the 
strong,  the  healthy,  the  fair,  the  noble  —  as  the  Mina- 
taur  of  old  selected  the  most  beautiful  youths  and 
maidens  of  Athens  to  feed  its  maw,  and  thus  leaves  the 
weak,  the  anaemic,  the  unfit  to  be  the  progenitors  of 
the  new  race  of  the  future.  "  Greece  died  because  the 
men  who  made  her  glory  had  all  passed  away  and  left 
none  of  their  kin  and  therefore  none  of  their  kind." 
Rome  went  the  same  way,  because  her  slaves  and  not 
her  warriors  bred  her  children.  The  campaigns  of 
Napoleon,  we  are  told,  reduced  the  height  of  the  aver- 
age Frenchman  by  three  inches.  America  has  never  re- 
covered from  the  awful  losses  suffered  in  the  Civil  War. 
And  what  shall  be  said  of  the  permanent  ravages  of 
war  in  the  realm  of  the  spirit  —  man's  eye  accustomed 
once  again  to  blood-letting,  his  heart  poisoned  with 
lust  and  hate,  his  soul  prostituted  to  the  works  of  sav- 
agery? Nation  after  nation  has  perished  of  empire. 
Civilisation  after  civilisation  has  risen  into  glory  only 
to  decline  and  fall  through  the  death  of  body,  mind  and 
spirit  that  follows,  like  the  pestilence,  in  the  train  of 
war.  Look  at  Europe  to-day,  and  what  guarantee 
have  we  got  at  this  moment  that  H.  G.  Wells's  proph- 
ecy, made  in  his  Social  Forces  in  England  and  America, 
in  anticipation  of  just  such  a  universal  conflict  as  is 


282  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

now  raging,  will  not  come  true?  "  Every  modern 
European  state,"  he  says,  "is  ...  like  a  cranky,  ill- 
built  steamboat  in  which  some  idiot  has  mounted  and 
loaded  a  monstrous  gun  with  no  apparatus  to  damp  its 
recoil.  Whether  that  gun  hits  or  misses  when  it  is 
fired,  of  one  thing  we  may  be  absolutely  certain  —  it 
will  send  the  steamboat  to  the  bottom  of  the  sea." 

From  every  point  of  view,  therefore  —  from  the 
standpoint  of  things  spiritual  as  well  as  of  things  mate- 
rial, from  the  standpoint  of  the  future  as  well  as  of 
the  present  —  war  is  the  antithesis  of  life.  Its  one  end 
is  to  destroy  what  has  been  builded  up  through  many 
years  by  the  sweat  and  tears  of  men.  Its  one  aim  is 
to  kill  the  lives  which  men  have  conceived  in  joy,  women 
born  in  agony,  and  both  together  reared  in  love.  Its 
one  supreme  triumph  is  to  turn  a  busy  factory  into  a 
pile  of  wreckage,  a  fertile  field  into  a  desert,  a  home  of 
joy  into  an  ash-heap  of  sorrow,  a  living  soul  into  a 
rotting  carcass.  Why,  if  war  could  once  be  carried 
through  to  its  logical  conclusions  —  if  there  were  not 
a  limit  to  all  strength,  and  a  point  of  exhaustion 
for  every  passion  —  mankind  would  long  since  have 
annihilated  itself  and  this  planet  become  as  tenantless 
as  the  silent  moon !  And  yet  there  are  some  —  yea, 
there  are  many!  —  who  are  ready  to  assert  that  this 
foul  business  is  sometimes  and  somewheres  justifiable. 
This  I  deny  without  qualification  or  evasion  of  any 
kind.  War  is  never  justifiable  at  any  time  or  under 
any  circumstances.  No  man  is  wise  enough,  no  nation 
is  important  enough,  no  human  interest  is  precious 


IS  WAR  EVER  JUSTIFIABLE?  283 

enough,  to  justify  the  wholesale  destruction  and  mur- 
der which  constitute  the  essence  of  war.  Human  life 
is  alone  sacred.  The  interests  of  human  life  are  alone 
sovereign.  War,  as  we  have  now  seen,  is  the  enemy  of 
life  and  all  its  interests.  Therefore,  in  the  name  of 
life  and  for  the  sake  of  life,  do  I  declare  that  war  must 
be  condemned  universally  and  unconditionally. 

It  is  with  war  to-day  exactly  as  with  similar  abomi- 
nations yesterday.  Plato  thought  that  human  slavery 
was  justifiable,  since  it  enabled  the  free  citizens  of  his 
ideal  republic  to  live  the  good  life.  Torquemada 
thought  persecution  justifiable,  since  it  gave  protection 
to  the  true  faith.  The  manufacturers  of  England  in 
the  early  decades  of  the  nineteenth  century  thought 
that  the  degrading  labour  of  women  and  children  in 
factories  and  coal-mines  was  justifiable,  since  it  gave  to 
England  the  industrial  leadership  of  the  world.  In 
the  same  way  we  deceive  ourselves  to-day  into  believing 
that  war  is  justifiable,  when  it  is  fought  on  behalf  of 
political  liberty,  we  will  say,  or  in  defence  of  the  in- 
tegrity of  a  nation.  But  some  day  men  will  awaken 
from  this  illusion  and  see  that  war  is  never  justifiable. 
It  will  be  with  war  as  it  was  long  since  with  human  sac- 
rifice. This  hideous  practice,  like  the  equally  hideous 
practice  of  war,  was  bound  up  with  the  most  solemn 
customs  and  the  most  desperate  fears  of  men.  It 
seemed  as  sacred  and  as  necessary  to  the  ancients  as  a 
war  of  liberty  does  to  us  to-day.  But  there  came  a 
time  when  men  and  women,  out  of  sheer  regard  for  the 
sanctity  of  human  life,  revolted  against  this  practice. 


284  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

In  face  of  persecution  and  ridicule,  they  pointed  out 
that,  in  sacrificing  one  little  child  upon  the  altars  of 
the  gods,  a  wrong  was  wrought  upon  their  kind  so  ter- 
rible that  it  could  not  be  justified  by  any  good  achieved 
or  any  evil  forefended.  Better  that  men  perished  al- 
together than  that  one  life  should  be  thus  destroyed ! 
And  little  by  little  men  came  to  agree  with  these  pio- 
neers, and  human  sacrifice  was  abolished. 

So  will  it  be  with  war.  A  few  men  have  always 
seen,  and  more  men  are  in  our  time  beginning  to  see, 
that  nothing  can  justify  the  human  sacrifice  of  a  sol- 
dier upon  the  field  of  battle,  and  therefore  that  war 
must  go,  at  whatever  cost.  War  is  hate,  and  hate  has 
no  place  within  the  human  heart.  War  is  death,  and 
death  has  no  place  within  the  realms  of  life.  War  is 
hell,  and  hell  has  no  more  place  in  the  human  order  than 
in  the  divine.  Walt  Whitman,  in  language  as  forceful 
as  it  is  inelegant,  summed  up  the  whole  matter  when  he 
said,  "  O  God !  this  whole  damned  war  business  is  about 
nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  parts  diarrhoea  to  one 
part  glory.  .  .  .  Wars  are  hellish  business  —  all  wars. 
.  .  .  Any  honest  man  says  so  —  hates  war,  fighting, 
blood-letting.  I  was  in  the  midst  of  it  all  —  saw  war 
where  war  was  worst  —  not  on  the  battlefields,  no  — 
in  the  hospitals:  there  war  is  worst:  there  I  mixed 
with  it,  and  now  I  say  God  damn  the  wars  —  all  wars : 
God  damn  every  war :  God  damn  'em !  God  damn  'em !  " 


IS  WAR  EVER  JUSTIFIABLE?  285 

IV 

To  many  persons  this  indictment  of  war  will  un- 
doubtedly seem  in  the  main  to  be  just,  but  in  certain 
particular  cases  at  least  to  be  unjust.  The  average 
war,  you  say,  is  without  any  question  indefensible. 
But  are  there  not  some  wars  in  the  past  which  have 
been  justifiable  on  the  very  grounds  which  you  have 
laid  down,  and  is  it  not  likely  that  there  may  be  some 
wars  in  the  future,  in  which  our  own  nation  may  be- 
come engaged,  which  may  be  similarly  justifiable? 
Are  there  not  two  kinds  of  war  at  least  which  must  be 
excepted  from  even  the  most  sweeping  indictment  —  on 
the  one  hand,  the  war  which  is  fought  on  behalf  of  some 
great  principle,  of  which  the  Civil  War  is  a  good  ex- 
ample; and  on  the  other  hand,  the  war  which  is  fought 
in  the  defence  of  nationality,  of  which  Belgium's  present 
war  against  Germany  may  be  taken  as  an  illustration? 

Taking  the  war  on  behalf  of  principle  for  our  first 
consideration,  let  me  point  out  in  the  beginning  that 
this  so-called  "  moral  justification  of  war  "  is  nearly 
always  the  flimsiest  kind  of  a  pretext.  The  real  cause 
even  of  those  wars  which  are  placed  on  the  highest 
moral  plane  is  national  jealousy,  commercial  rivalry, 
industrial  selfishness,  imperialistic  ambition,  diplomatic 
misunderstanding,  rather  than  any  truly  genuine  prin- 
ciple of  idealism.  It  is  a  poor  king  or  chancellor  or 
president  who  cannot  find  high  moral  grounds  for 
going  to  war  with  a  neighbouring  state  when  there  are 
economic  or  political  conditions  which  make  such  a  war 


286  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

desirable.  Take  the  present  conflict  in  Europe,  for 
example.  The  striking  fact  about  this  most  horrible 
of  all  wars  is  that  every  nation  is  pretending  to  fight  for 
reasons  which  are  absolutely  unselfish  and  beneficent. 
England  as  well  as  Germany,  Austria  as  well  as  France, 
was  forced  into  the  struggle  wholly  against  her  will, 
that  civilisation  might  be  maintained,  that  a  pledged 
word  might  be  fulfilled,  that  the  interests  of  humanity 
might  be  safeguarded  against  violation  and  destruction ! 
In  the  face  of  such  a  unanimous  profession  of  national 
virtue,  unexampled  in  this  hitherto  imperfect  world,  we 
are  all  tempted  to  believe  that  some  nation  or  group 
of  nations  is  a  liar.  And  those  who  have  no  particular 
interests  or  prejudices  at  stake,  are  pretty  well  con- 
vinced by  this  time  that  all  of  them  together  are  un- 
worthy of  confidence.  Let  there  be  no  mistake  about 
this !  Nations  go  to  war  to-day,  as  they  did  yesterday, 
for  reasons  which  are  selfish  and  therefore  immoral. 
There  are  foreign  markets  to  be  won,  surplus  capital  to 
be  invested  and  thereafter  protected  in  alien  lands,  con- 
cessions to  be  gained  and  held  at  any  cost  in  undevel- 
oped continents,  rich  profits  to  be  accumulated  from 
the  exploitation  of  savage  peoples,  vast  power  to  be 
wielded  in  colonial  empire  —  and  all  such  goals  to  be 
won  at  the  expense  of  other  nations  striving  for  the 
same  or  greater  ends !  It  is  for  these  reasons,  partly 
political,  mostly  economic,  that  armaments  are  builded 
and  wars  declared.  Wars  for  ideals,  liberties,  civilisa- 
tions —  these  are  illusions  behind  which  are  hidden  the 
hideous  struggle  for  industrial  supremacy.  Real  wars, 


IS  WAR  EVER  JUSTIFIABLE?  287 

at  least  in  our  time,  are  simply  so  many  moves  in  the 
great  game  for  profits.  They  are  made  behind  closed 
doors,  by  a  few  men,  for  an  ignoble  materialistic  end. 
Reduced  to  its  lowest  terms,  for  instance,  this  present 
struggle  is  simply  and  solely  a  battle  not  between  the 
Kingdom  of  Darkness  and  the  Kingdom  of  Light,  but 
between  industrial  England  and  industrial  Germany  for 
the  industrial  mastery  of  the  world  1 

But  surely  there  have  been  some  wars  which  were 
fought  for  a  high  and  noble  purpose.  What  about  the 
American  Civil  War,  for  example? 

To  this  plea  I  make  answer  that  there  undoubtedly 
have  been  a  few  wars  of  this  kind,  and  that  the  Civil 
War  is  most  surely  one  of  them.  If  any  war  in  the 
history  of  the  world  was  ever  fought  unselfishly,  this 
is  the  one.  The  pathetic  face  of  Abraham  Lincoln, 
and  the  noble  figure  of  Robert  E.  Lee,  tell  the  whole 
story.  But  to  this  plea  I  would  also  make  the  answer, 
offered  by  Prof.  Durant  Drake,  of  Wesleyan  Univer- 
sity, in  his  recent  book  on  The  Problems  of  Conduct 
—  a  moralist,  it  may  be  pointed  out,  who  does  not  re- 
gard war  as  an  unmitigated  evil !  —  that  "  nearly  al- 
ways (in  such  cases)  the  good  aimed  at  could  have  been 
attained  without  the  evils  of  war.  If  the  American 
colonies,"  he  continues,  referring  to  the  Revolution, 
"  had  had  a  little  more  patience,  they  could  have  won 
the  liberty  they  craved  without  war  and  separation 
from  the  mother  country  —  as  Canada  and  Australia 
have  done.  If  the  United  States  had  had  a  little  more 
patience  and  tact  and  diplomacy,  it  is  probable  that 


288  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

Cuba  could  have  been  saved  from  the  intolerable  op- 
pression of  Spain  without  war."  And  the  same  thing 
is  true  of  the  Great  Rebellion !  This  fight  has  been 
described  as  "  an  irreconcilable  conflict."  But  it  was 
irreconcilable,  not  because  of  any  elements  in  the  prob- 
lem itself,  but  because  of  the  compromises,  the  stupidi- 
ties and  the  blind  passions  of  men  on  both  sides  of 
Mason  and  Dixon's  line.  Slaves  had  been  freed  before 
'61  without  disrupting  a  nation  and  precipitating  a 
civil  conflict.  And  yet  I  am  told  that  because  states- 
men in  this  country  did  not  have  the  skill,  the  tact,  the 
patience,  the  courage,  of  statesmen  in  other  countries, 
men  must  shoulder  their  muskets  and  enter  upon  the 
business  of  mutual  slaughter !  I  do  not  believe  it.  I 
cannot  believe  it.  There  is  always  a  better  way  in  all 
of  these  disputes.  And  our  failure  to  find  this  bet- 
ter way  can  never  justify  our  taking  the  way  of 
evil. 

But  what  about  a  war  fought  in  self-defence?  Must 
not  this  at  least  be  an  exception  to  our  rule  of  uni- 
versal condemnation?  Is  there  anybody  who  would  not 
justify  Belgium  for  her  battle  against  Germany? 

Remembering  that  at  the  present  moment,  every  one 
of  the  thirteen  nations,  from  Germany  on  the  one  side 
to  Russia  upon  the  other,  is  fighting  a  defensive  war,  I 
am  tempted  to  put  this  whole  plea  out  of  court  by  de- 
claring that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  defensive  war. 
Granting,  however,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that, 
as  in  the  case  of  Belgium,  there  are  wars  which  are 
purely  defensive,  I  venture  to  lay  down,  in  accordance 


IS  WAR  EVER  JUSTIFIABLE?  289 

with  the  true  doctrine  of  non-resistance,  two  safe  prin- 
ciples which  some  day  are  going  to  be  apprehended  and 
accepted  by  the  souls  of  men,  even  though  they  be 
not  so  apprehended  and  accepted  at  the  present  mo- 
ment. 

In  the  first  place,  no  defence  of  a  nation  is  a  real 
defence  unless  it  be  a  defence  of  the  spirit,  and  against 
a  defence  of  this  kind  the  arms  of  the  flesh  are 
ineffectual.  It  is  possible  for  the  soldiers  of  one  na- 
tion to  occupy  the  territory  of  another  nation  —  seize 
her  ports,  capture  her  cities,  occupy  her  strongholds, 
levy  tribute  on  her  citizens  —  but  what  avails  such  a 
victory  of  arms?  The  legions  of  Rome  overran  the 
peninsula  of  Greece,  destroyed  her  cities,  laid  waste  her 
shrines,  and  enslaved  her  people  —  but  the  light  of 
Greece  was  not  and  could  not  be  extinguished.  The 
barbarians  from  the  forest  fastnesses  across  the  Rhine 
and  Danube  invaded,  captured  and  sacked  Rome,  not 
once  but  many  times  —  but  the  /Eneid  of  Virgil,  the 
Odes  of  Horace,  and  the  Laws  of  Justinian  are  still 
with  us.  The  armies  of  Napoleon  conquered  Germany 
from  end  to  end  in  1806  and  1807,  but  Goethe  still 
reigned  supreme  in  Weimar,  Fichte  still  taught  in  Ber- 
lin, and  the  spirit  of  Martin  Luther  and  Immanuel 
Kant  still  brooded  in  the  hearts  of  conquered  men  — 
and  the  culture  which  these  men  embodied  and  set  forth 
lives  on  to-day  a  hundred  years  after  the  empire  of 
Napoleon  crashed  to  ruin.  And  so  to-day  the  armies 
of  the  Allies  may  march  from  west  to  east  to  the  city 
of  Berlin,  and  hurl  a  proud  people  prostrate  in  the 


290  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

dust,  but  neither  Cossack  nor  Zouave  will  weaken, 
much  less  destroy,  the  world  dominion  of  all  that  is 
good  in  German  culture.  Or,  reversing  the  picture, 
the  legions  of  Germany  may  ravage  France  from  Os- 
tend  to  Marseilles,  leave  England  a  desert  island  in  a 
wintry  sea,  conquer  Russia  and  add  it  to  the  empire  of 
the  Kaiser,  but  Coligny,  Moliere,  Hugo,  Berlioz,  Rodin, 
will  still  survive;  the  language  spoken  by  Shakespeare 
and  the  science  taught  by  Darwin  will  still  illume  the 
minds  of  men,  and  Tolstoi  will  still  rebuke  from  his 
grave  the  pride  of  kings.  Not  territory  but  learning, 
not  wealth  but  vision,  not  political  headship  but  spir- 
itual leadership  —  this  constitutes  a  nation.  And  this 
it  is  which  needs  no  defence  of  battleships  and  forts. 
Let  Germany  come  here  to  America  to-day  as  she  came 
to  Belgium  yesterday  —  what  of  it?  The  Declaration 
of  Independence  would  defy  her  sword,  the  Constitution 
resist  her  42-centimetre  guns,  the  memory  of  Lincoln 
shame  her  panoply  of  arms.  Let  her  come,  and  we  will 
not  only  prove  unconquerable,  but  we  will  ourselves 
conquer  our  conquerors,  as  Greece  conquered  her 
Roman  masters,  and  as  Rome  in  turn  conquered  her 
Ostrogoth  and  Visigoth  invaders. 

The  spirit,  therefore,  is  the  essential  thing  —  and 
this,  if  it  be  true,  can  survive  all  accidents  of  arms. 
And  yet,  is  it  possible  to  disregard  so  completely  all 
geographical  and  political  consideration?  Must  we 
not  love  our  country,  as  we  love  our  homes  —  and  must 
we  not  be  prepared  to  defend  our  country,  as  we  would 
our  homes,  when  the  enemy  comes  against  it?  Is  not 


IS  WAR  EVER  JUSTIFIABLE?  291 

patriotism  a  true  and  noble  instinct  —  and  must  we 
not,  like  the  Belgians,  be  faithful  to  this  instinct  even 
unto  death? 

This  brings  us  to  the  second  principle  which  must 
be  offered  in  answer  to  the  plea  of  self-defence. 
Patriotism,  assuredly,  is  one  of  the  strongest  and  pur- 
est instincts  of  the  soul.  That  man  has  indeed  a  dead 
soul,  as  Sir  Walter  Scott  has  told  us, 

"Who  never  to  himself  hath  said, 
This  is  my  own,  my  native  land." 

Noble  as  it  is,  however,  patriotism  cannot  be  regarded 
as  a  complete  and  perfect  virtue  in  itself,  but  only  one 
step  onward  in  the  development  of  that  final  virtue, 
which  is  the  sentiment  not  of  country  but  of  humanity. 
There  was  a  time,  in  ages  long  gone  by,  when  man's 
noblest  passion  found  expression  in  the  defence  of  noth- 
ing larger  than  his  hole  in  the  rocks  or  his  bower  in  the 
tree.  Later  on  village  life  developed,  and  patriotism 
took  the  form  of  defending  a  single  community  against 
the  men  of  the  next  community.  Later  still,  came  the 
canton  or  state  —  and  then,  as  in  ancient  Greece,  or 
mediaeval  Italy,  or  in  America  only  fifty  years  ago, 
man's  highest  duty  was  to  defend  his  state  in  prefer- 
ence even  to  the  nation.  Now  we  are  in  the  national- 
istic stage  of  evolution,  where  no  higher  conception  of 
human  relationships  is  generally  apparent  than  that  of 
a  country  such  as  England,  Germany,  or  America. 
And  to  many  a  devoted  soul,  this  marks  the  end  of 
progress.  But  not  so,  if  vision  is  at  all  clear.  Be- 


292  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

yond  the  nation  is  the  world,  and  beyond  the  people  of 
one  country  the  great  circle  of  humanity.  And  as 
sure  as  we  are  living  at  this  moment,  so  surely,  in  the 
distant  future,  the  day  will  come  when  we  shall  recog- 
nise that  our  first  and  highest  duty  is  to  mankind  as  a 
whole,  and  not  to  any  single  section  of  mankind.  I 
love  America.  I  cherish  her  history,  revere  her  heroes, 
admire  her  people,  hail  her  destiny.  But  not  yet  do  I 
love  her  enough  to  seek,  in  the  name  of  that  love,  to 
injure  or  destroy  any  other  people  on  this  earth.  If 
I  must  hate  Germany,  in  order  to  love  America,  I  will 
not  love  her.  If  I  must  take  up  arms  against  the  Eng- 
lish, in  order  to  defend  America,  then  I  will  not  defend 
her.  If  I  must  sacrifice  my  membership  in  the  human 
family,  in  order  to  keep  my  citizenship  in  America,  then 
I  will  not  keep  that  citizenship.  There  was  a  time,  not 
so  long  ago,  when  men  in  this  country  had  to 
choose  between  loyalty  to  Virginia  and  loyalty  to 
America,  and  we  believe  that  those  chose  rightly  who 
chose  America.  So  even  now  is  there  come  the  time 
when  we  must  choose  between  loyalty  to  America  and 
loyalty  to  the  world,  and  I  believe  that  those  will 
choose  rightly  who  choose  the  world.  Not  to  America 
or  Germany  or  England  but  to  that  one  blood  of  which 
God  hath  made  all  nations  of  men  —  not  to  Americans 
or  Germans  or  Englishmen  but  to  "  the  brethren " 
everywhere  —  not  to  king  or  kaiser  or  president,  but 
to  God  the  universal  Father  —  must  we  pledge  our 
first  allegiance.  "  Let  not  a  man  glory  in  this,  that  he 
loves  his  country,"  says  Baha  o'llah,  in  one  of  the 


IS  WAR  EVER  JUSTIFIABLE?  293 

noblest  statements  which  has  ever  fallen,  like  sweet 
music,  upon  the  human  heart,  "  let  him  rather  glory  in 
this,  that  he  loves  his  kind." 


Here,  then,  is  our  answer  to  the  question,  Is  War 
Ever  Justifiable?  No  —  war  is  never  justifiable  under 
any  circumstances.  And  this  means  what,  in  practical 
terms,  to-day?  It  means  not  only  that  war  in  general 
is  unjustifiable  in  general,  but  that  this  English  war 
to-day  is  unjustifiable  for  Englishmen,  and  this  Ger- 
man war  unjustifiable  for  Germans.  It  means  that  this 
war  which  may,  in  the  folly  of  men,  come  to  America 
to-morrow,  is  unjustifiable  for  Americans.  It  means 
that  sometime,  somewhere,  somehow,  war,  like  famine, 
disease,  cannibalism,  infanticide,  human  sacrifice,  will 
be  utterly  abolished,  and  permanent  and  universal  peace 
established  on  the  earth.  Then  shall  we  see  at  last  that 
every  argument  for  war  is  sophistry  and  every  act  in 
war  a  crime. 


CHAPTER  IX 

IS  PERMANENT  AND  UNIVERSAL  PEACE 
TO  BE  DESIRED? 


"  'Twas  said,  '  When  roll  of  drum  and  battle's  roar 
Shall  cease  upon  the  earth,  oh,  then  no  more 
The  deed,  the  race,  the  heroes  in  the  land.' 
But  scarce  that  word  was  breathed  when  one  small  hand 
Lifted  victorious  o'er  a  giant  wrong, 
That  had  its  victims  crushed  through  ages  long; 
Some  woman  set  her  pale  and  quivering  face 
Firm  as  a  rock  against  a  man's  disgrace; 
Some  quiet  scholar  flung  his  gauntlet  down, 
And  risked  in  Truth's  great  name  the  Synod's  frown; 
A  civic  hero,  in  the  calm  realm  of  laws, 
Did  that  which  suddenly  drew  a  world's  applause; 
And  one  to  the  pest  his  lithe  young  body  gave, 
Th*t  he  a  thousand  thousand    lives  might  save." 

—  Richard  Watson  Gilder. 


CHAPTER  IX 

IS    PERMANENT    AND    UNIVERSAL,    PEACE    TO    BE 
DESIRED? 

THE  mention  of  the  certain  coming  of  a  day  when  war 
will  be  abolished  and  peace  secured,  raises  at  this  point 
the  further  question  as  to  whether  permanent  and  uni- 
versal peace  is  really  a  desirable  state  of  affairs. 
Most  men  without  doubt  cherish  this  hope  as  one  of 
the  most  beautiful  and  beneficent  visions  of  the  human 
spirit.  The  present  war,  for  example,  is  saved  from 
being  an  absolutely  unmitigated  horror  by  the  pros- 
pect that  it  may  take  its  place  in  history,  to  quote  Mr. 
Wells  again,  as  "  the  war  that  ended  war." 

Just  how  this  longed-for  end  is  going  to  be  achieved, 
no  one,  not  even  Mr.  Wells,  ventures  to  say.  Some 
dream  of  the  establishment  of  an  International  Court 
of  Arbitration  which  shall  be  backed  by  a  degree  of 
political  authority  which  will  enable  it  to  enforce  its 
decrees  upon  the  wayward  wills  of  men.  Some  believe 
that  out  of  this  stupendous  struggle  will  come  a  new 
and  permanent  alliance  of  all  the  leading  nations  of 
the  world,  which  will  have  for  its  purpose  not  the 
maintenance  of  a  so-called  balance  of  power,  but  rather 
the  enforcement  of  the  rule  of  peace  upon  all  less  ad- 
vanced and  more  barbarous  peoples.  Others  like  to 
think  that  out  of  this  war  will  come  a  United  States  of 

297 


298  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

Europe,  as  out  of  the  Revolution  of  1776  there  came 
a  United  States  of  America,  which  will  enable  all  the 
countries  of  the  continent  to  live  together  in  harmony, 
after  the  example  of  the  forty-eight  states  of  our  great 
Republic.  A  few  men  even  hark  back  to  the  essay  of 
Immanuel  Kant,  written  in  1795,  on  Eternal  Peace,  and 
contemplate  again  the  conception  that  arose  in  the  mind 
of  this  greatest  of  all  modern  philosophers,  of  the  es- 
tablishment throughout  Europe  of  those  republican 
forms  of  government  which  must,  from  their  very  na- 
ture, guarantee  the  reign  of  peace. 

But  however  we  may  differ  in  our  hopes  and  prophe- 
cies as  to  the  means  which  may  be  employed  for  the 
attainment  of  this  great  end,  we  are  certainly  agreed 
as  regards  the  end  itself.  The  establishment  of  per- 
manent and  universal  peace  upon  the  earth  is  the 
one  adequate  compensation  for  the  hideous  slaughter 
and  exhaustion  of  this  world-wide  cataclysm.  The 
very  determination  of  the  nations  which  now  seems  so 
ruthless,  and  which,  more  than  anything  else,  is  mak- 
ing the  struggle  so  terrific,  is  the  one  thing  which  gives 
the  surest  guarantee  of  the  ultimate  attainment  of  this 
goal.  For  when  the  tide  of  war  has  swept  on  to  the 
last  bloody  and  shattered  trench,  when  the  nations  en- 
gaged in  the  awful  struggle  at  last  lay  down  their 
arms  from  sheer  inability  to  hold  and  wield  them  longer, 
will  not  these  same  nations  be  ready  to  see,  as  never 
before,  the  futility  of  it  all,  and  in  their  very  weakness 
band  themselves  together  not  merely  for  mutual  sup- 
port, but  for  the  higher  aim  of  establishing  that  condi- 


IS  PEACE  TO  BE  DESIRED?  299 

tion  of  universal  brotherhood  which  has  for  so  long  been 
regarded  as  but  the  dream  of  poets  and  prophets? 
This,  certainly,  is  the  thing  for  which  we  hope !  Some 
day  far  hence  when  our  children  or  children's  children 
look  back  upon  this  awful  struggle,  as  we  look  back 
upon  the  civil  struggle  in  America,  may  they  be  able 
to  say,  what  we  have  long  since  learned  to  say  of  the 
great  Rebellion,  that,  as  James  Russell  Lowell  put  it, 
this  battle  was  "  the  great  corrector  of  enormous 
times  " ! 


It  is  a  mistake,  however,  to  cherish  the  illusion 
that  this  desire  for  permanent  and  universal  peace  is 
a  unanimous  sentiment.  For  there  are  many  men  in 
the  world  to-day,  as  there  have  always  been  such  men 
in  other  days,  who  believe  that  war  is  in  its  essence 
beneficent,  and  that  the  establishment  therefore  of  per- 
manent and  universal  peace  would  constitute  a  genuine 
disaster.  Some  of  these  men,  of  course,  have  extra- 
neous motives  for  regarding  peace  as  a  curse  and  war 
as  a  blessing.  Thus,  army  officers  and  navy  officers, 
for  example,  whose  trade  is  war,  naturally  desire  that 
this  trade  should  prosper.  Editors  of  irresponsible 
newspapers  inevitably  welcome  scenes  of  war  as  a  more 
liberal  and  constant  provider  of  sensation  than  the 
quiet  ways  of  peace.  Manufacturers  of  rifles  and  am- 
munition see  clearly  enough  that  the  battlefields  are 
the  best  markets  that  can  be  secured  for  the  disposal 
of  their  goods.  These  men  have  good  reason  for  be- 


300  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

lieving  that  the  establishment  of  permanent  and  uni- 
versal peace  would  be  disastrous ;  but  these  reasons  are 
so  obviously  founded  upon  selfish  considerations  that 
they  can  of  course  play  no  part  in  a  serious  discussion 
of  the  general  problem. 

Along  with  these  men,  however,  are  certain  other  men 
—  statesmen,  poets,  prophets,  thinkers  —  who  hold  ex- 
actly the  same  opinions  in  regard  to  the  essentially 
beneficent  character  of  war,  but  whose  motives  are  as 
disinterested  as  their  ideas  are  clear  and  emphatic. 
These  men  recognise  that  war  involves  evil  as  well  as 
good ;  but  they  assert  that  the  same  contradiction  is  to 
be  found  in  peace  also.  And  when  they  come  to  com- 
pare the  evil  and  the  good  of  the  one  with  the  evil  and 
the  good  of  the  other,  they  do  not  hesitate  to  declare 
that  the  balance  of  good  is  to  be  found  most  decidedly 
on  the  side  of  war.  Peace  is  undoubtedly  to  be  ac- 
cepted as  embodying  the  normal  condition  of  affairs ; 
an  uninterrupted  state  of  armed  conflict  would  be  in- 
tolerable and  in  the  end  suicidal.  But  the  abolition  of 
war  as  a  recurring  condition  of  human  relationships 
would  likewise  be  disastrous ;  for  without  those  qualities 
which  "  war  alone,"  in  the  phrase  of  Theodore  Roose- 
velt, can  develop,  man  will  "  rot  and  decay."  If  the 
race  is  to  survive,  to  say  nothing  of  advancing,  man 
must  ever  be  fundamentally  militaristic  —  which  means 
that  war  must  be  safeguarded  as  a  perpetual  contin- 
gency and  an  occasional  reality. 


IS  PEACE  TO  BE  DESIRED? 


n 

This  point  of  view  is  to  many  of  us  so  strange  and 
perhaps  unconvincing,  that  it  may  be  well  to  consider 
in  some  detail  the  arguments  on  behalf  of  war  that 
have  been  formulated  and  maintained  by  some  of  the 
master  minds  of  past  and  present. 

For  our  first  example  we  may  turn  to  the  great 
Athenian  scientist  and  philosopher,  Aristotle,  who  is 
commonly  regarded  as  the  most  wonderful  thinker  of 
the  ancient  world,  and  has  more  than  once  been  de- 
scribed, as  by  John  Fiske  for  example,  as  "  the  great- 
est intellect  "  that  the  human  race  has  produced.  Now 
Aristotle,  it  is  interesting  to  note,  believed  that  war 
was  not  only  a  good  thing  but,  from  the  moral  stand- 
point, indispensable  ;  and  therefore  he  taught  that  its 
abolition  in  favour  of  permanent  and  universal  peace 
would  be  a  calamity.  In  the  pages  of  his  treatise  on 
Ethics,  we  find  a  careful  and  persuasive  statement  of 
the  reasons  which  led  him  to  this  conclusion,  which  seems 
more  surprising  to  our  age,  undoubtedly,  than  to  his 
own.  In  this  book  he  discusses  the  various  virtues  of 
human  life,  and  endeavours  to  arrange  them  in  a  scale 
of  values,  just  as  James  Martineau  attempted  to  do 
in  much  more  elaborate  fashion  in  his  Types  of  Ethical 
Theory.  As  the  highest  of  the  virtues,  Aristotle  names 
courage  ;  and,  as  the  highest  of  different  forms  of  cour- 
age, he  places  the  courage  displayed  by  the  soldier 
upon  the  field  of  battle.  All  courage,  he  says,  is  at 
bottom  an  expression  of  contempt  for  mere  physical 


302  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

existence.  It  is  a  willingness  to  treat  life  not  as  some- 
thing to  be  enjoyed  in  itself  but  as  something  to  be 
used  for  the  higher  and  nobler  interests  of  the  spirit. 
The  coward  is  fundamentally  the  one  who  would  pre- 
serve his  life  at  any  spiritual  cost,  the  hero  is  the  one 
who  would  gladly  fling  away  his  life,  as  a  worthless 
encumbrance,  if  thereby  he  might  win  the  "  prize  "  of 
some  "  high  calling." 

Now  there  are  many  contingencies,  continues  Aris- 
totle, where  the  choice  has  to  be  made  between  the  role 
of  cowardice  and  the  role  of  courage  as  thus  defined. 
A  man  is  stricken  with  some  dread  disease,  and  is 
forced  to  contemplate  the  imminent  prospect  of  its 
fatal  termination.  Or  he  stands  upon  the  deck  of  a 
sinking  vessel,  waiting  to  begin  the  battle  for  life  in 
the  "icy  waves.  Or  he  finds  himself  looking  into  a 
blazing  building,  whence  come  agonizing  cries  for  the 
help  that  he  alone  can  give.  Here  in  each  and  every 
case  is  the  test  of  virtue,  in  the  Greek  or  Aristotelian 
sense  of  that  word.  But  not  the  supreme  test!  For 
in  all  of  these  contingencies,  as  the  philosopher  points 
out,  the  choice  between  cowardice  and  courage  is  in- 
voluntary. The  challenge  has  been  met  by  accident, 
and  not  sought  out  by  deliberation.  In  one  contin- 
gency only  is  there  a  free  choice  of  the  hazard  of  life 
and  death  —  and  that  is  the  contingency  of  battle. 
The  soldier  purposely  puts  himself  into  the  situation 
where  the  sacrifice  of  his  physical  existence  may  be- 
come an  immediate  necessity.  He  deliberately  pursues, 
until  he  finds  it,  the  perfect  test  of  courage,  which,  as 


IS  PEACE  TO  BE  DESIRED?  303 

we  have  seen,  is  to  be  rated  as  the  highest  of  all  moral 
qualities.  Therefore  do  we  have  in  the  soldier,  who 
marches  away  to  the  field  of  battle,  the  supreme  mani- 
festation of  human  virtue ;  and  in  the  battle  itself  the 
indispensable  condition  of  this  manifestation.  What 
would  it  mean  to  humanity  if  this  ultimate  challenge  to 
the  soul  were  permanently  abolished,  and  man  never 
forced  to  meet  the  final  test  of  facing  death  in  its  most 
sudden  and  dreadful  form  in  the  clash  of  deadly  weap- 
ons? Is  it  not  obvious,  says  Aristotle,  that  if  peace 
were  permanently  and  universally  established,  and  the 
hazard  of  battle  thus  permanently  and  universally  re- 
moved, the  noblest  type  of  human  virtue  would  disap- 
pear, and  mankind  enter  a  slow  but  sure  period  of  dis- 
integration? "  The  brave  man,"  in  the  exact  words  of 
this  teacher  of  ancient  Greece,  "  has  to  do  with  terrible 
things.  But  death  is  the  most  terrible  of  all  things. 
.  .  .  And  yet  the  brave  man  does  not  appear  to  have 
to  do  with  death  in  every  form,  as  at  sea  or  in  disease, 
but  only  with  the  most  honourable  kinds  of  death.  ,  .  . 
And  those  that  occur  in  war  are  of  this  kind,  for  in  war 
the  danger  is  the  greatest  and  the  most  honourable." 
A  second  example  of  this  viewpoint  is  John  Ruskin, 
who  would  seem  to  be  the  last  person  in  the  world  to  find 
excuse  for  such  a  social  abomination  as  international 
conflict.  In  his  Notes  on  the  Political  Economy  of 
Prussia,  published  in  his  volume  entitled  The  Crown  of 
Wild  Olive,  however,  he  confesses  to  having  had  always 
the  most  contradictory  opinions  upon  this  subject. 
"  It  is  impossible,"  he  says,  "  for  me  to  write  consist- 


304  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

ently  of  war,  for  the  group  of  facts  which  I  have  gath- 
ered about  it  lead  me  to  two  precisely  opposite  conclu- 
sions. .  .  .  The  conviction  on  which  I  act  is,  that  it 
causes  an  incalculable  amount  of  avoidable  human  suf- 
fering, and  that  it  ought  to  cease  among  Christian  na- 
tions ;  and  if  therefore  any  of  my  boy-friends  desire  to 
be  soldiers,  I  try  my  utmost  to  bring  them  into  what 
I  conceive  to  be  a  better  mind.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
I  know  certainly  that  the  most  beautiful  characters 
yet  developed  among  men  have  been  formed  in  war  — 
that  all  great  nations  have  been  warrior  nations,  and 
that  the  only  kinds  of  peace  which  we  are  likely  to  get 
in  the  present  age  are  ruinous  alike  to  the  intellect  and 
the  heart." 

Enlarging  upon  this  statement  of  the  case  in  his  lec- 
ture on  War,  Ruskin  lays  down  the  categorical  propo- 
sitions that  "  all  the  pure  and  noble  arts  of  peace  are 
founded  on  war,"  and  that  indeed  "  no  great  art  ever 
rose  on  earth,  but  among  a  nation  of  soldiers."  He 
buttresses  this  astonishing  assertion  by  detailed  refer- 
ences to  the  history  of  Egypt,  Greece,  and  the  Middle 
Ages,  showing  that  art  is  in  each  case  the  expression 
of  "  the  faculties  of  men  at  their  fulness,"  this  "  ful- 
ness "  in  turn  being  the  direct,  consequence  of  war ;  and 
that  when  war  subsides  and  peace  is  established,  art 
immediately  "  declines  "  and  in  some  cases  disappears 
altogether.  "  War  is  the  foundation  of  all  the  arts," 
says  Ruskin,  and  by  this  he  means  fundamentally  that 
"  it  is  the  foundation  of  all  the  high  virtues  and  facul- 
ties of  men."  "  It  was  very  strange  to  me  to  discover 


IS  PEACE  TO  BE  DESIRED?  305 

this,"  he  continues,  "  and  very  dreadful  —  but  I  saw  it 
to  be  quite  an  undeniable  fact.  .  .  .  We  talk  of  peace 
and  learning,  and  of  peace  and  plenty,  and  of  peace 
and  civilisation ;  but  I  found  that  those  were  not  the 
words  which  the  Muse  of  History  coupled  together : 
that,  on  her  lips,  the  words  were  —  peace  and  sensual- 
ity, peace  and  selfishness,  peace  and  corruption,  peace 
and  death.  I  found,  in  brief,  that  all  great  nations 
learned  their  truth  of  word,  and  strength  of  thought, 
in  war ;  that  they  were  nourished  in  war,  and  wasted  by 
peace ;  taught  by  war,  and  deceived  by  peace ;  trained 
by  war,  and  betrayed  by  peace  —  in  a  word,  that  they 
were  born  in  war,  and  expired  in  peace." 

From  this  astounding  interpretation  of  the  problem, 
John  Ruskin  goes  on  in  his  lecture  from  qualification 
to  reservation,  until  little  seems  to  be  left  of  this  sweep- 
ing assertion  with  which  he  started.  Again  and  again 
he  gets  entangled  in  hopeless  contradictions,  as  for 
example  in  his  closing  appeal  to  women,  where  he  prays 
them  to  use  their  influence  to  bring  wars  to  an  end  and 
shows  them  that  if  this  influence  were  used  aright,  "  no 
war  would  last  a  week."  It  is  evident  that  every  es- 
sential instinct  of  his  nature  cries  out  against  what  he 
calls,  in  a  passionate  and  unguarded  outburst,  "  the 
poverty,  misery,  and  rage  of  battle,"  and  that  if  he 
followed  the  spontaneous  impulses  of  his  heart,  he 
would  end  war  at  once  and  forever.  But  his  intellect 
leads  him  to  a  different  verdict.  Therefore,  while  his 
whole  soul  is  plainly  agonising,  does  he  plead  for  the 
continuance  of  warfare,  and  directs  his  entire  lecture 


306  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

on  the  subject  to  the  specific  end  of  strengthening  the 
trust  of  young  soldiers  "  in  the  virtue  of  their  profes- 
sion." In  all  this  there  is  no  consistency,  as  he  him- 
self admits.  And  yet,  out  of  all  the  jumble  of  con- 
fusion and  contradiction,  there  comes  the  emphatic 
declaration  that  war  is  necessary  to  the  health  of  na- 
tions, and  that  the  establishment  of  permanent  and  uni- 
versal peace  would  therefore  be  a  calamity. 

A  third  illustration  of  this  point  of  view  is  furnished 
by  the  late  Professor  Cramb,  of  Cambridge  University, 
England,  in  his  book  on  Germany  and  England.  The 
lectures  gathered  together  in  this  fascinating  volume 
have  been  strangely  enough  described  as  constituting 
an  "  answer  to  Bernhardi  "  and  the  other  more  or  less 
familiar  militaristic  writers  of  modern  Germany. 
Never  was  there  a  more  hideous  misnomer.  It  is  true 
that  Professor  Cramb,  like  every  other  cultured  man  of 
our  time,  recognises  the  appalling  cost  of  war  and  is 
anything  but  indifferent  to  its  attendant  horrors.  But 
quite  in  the  spirit  of  Bernhardi  and  his  school,  he  af- 
firms the  superiority  of  war  to  peace  as  a  condition  of 
individual  and  social  virtue,  deplores  the  agitation  for 
the  abolishment  of  war  as  wholly  pernicious,  and  again 
and  again  summons  his  countrymen,  as  Demosthenes 
summoned  the  Athenians,  to  take  up  arms,  as  not  only 
the  wisest  but  also  the  noblest  thing  that  they  can  do. 
"  Rouse  yourselves  from  your  lethargy !  "  is  his  word 
of  counsel.  "  Arm  and  stand  in  the  ranks  !  "  In  pages 
which  are  fairly  reeking  with  sarcasm  and  irony,  he  em- 
phasises the  futility  "  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  " 


IS  PEACE  TO  BE  DESIRED?  307 

of  all  man's  dreams  of  peace.  He  shows  how  these 
dreams  have  been  conceived  and  proclaimed  by  the  seers 
and  saints  of  all  the  ages  gone  —  that  no  century  has 
passed  without  its  poetic  and  prophetic  champions  of 
human  concord.  And  he  points  out  with  almost  exult- 
ant satisfaction  that  we  are  as  far  away  from  the  prac- 
tical fulfilment' of  this  dream  to-day  as  ever.  All  his 
other  dreams,  man  has  realised  sooner  or  later.  "  To- 
wards other  ideals,"  he  says,  "  man  has  progressed  —  in 
his  war  against  disease,  for  instance,  and  in  his  war 
against  nature,  the  forest,  the  sea,  the  vicissitudes  of 
season  and  of  climate."  But  here  he  has  encountered 
nothing  but  failure.  "  Toward  this  ideal  alone  he  has 
made  no  progress."  Which  means  not  that  man  has  not 
the  power  to  abolish  war,  as  he  has  every  other  abomi- 
nation which  has  stirred  his  hate,  but  simply  and  solely 
that  he  has  not,  in  the  innermost  parts  of  his  con- 
sciousness, any  real  desire  to  abolish  war!  He  may  de- 
nounce its  cost  and  deplore  its  miseries.  He  may  turn 
his  fancies  toward  the  coming  of  the  day  of  peace. 
But  in  his  heart  of  hearts,  he  knows  that  war  in  its 
essence  is  a  good  thing,  that  it  is  well  worth  its  stupen- 
dous cost,  that  its  material  horrors  are  more  than  com- 
pensated for  by  its  heroisms,  sacrifices,  and  sorrows. 

In  order  to  show  just  what  he  means  by  this  eulogy 
of  war,  Professor  Cramb  tells  in  truly  eloquent  phrase 
the  thrilling  and  touching  story  of  Captain  Scott  and 
the  four  comrades  who  perished  with  him  in  the  frozen 
wastes  of  the  Antarctic.  Why  did  these  men  under- 
take, in  defiance  of  every  consideration  of  practical 


308  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

reason,  this  hazardous  trip  to  the  South  Pole?  What 
could  they  bring  back  which  would  in  any  way  counter- 
balance the  deprivations,  miseries,  and  perils  which 
their  venture  involved?  Are  not  their  useless  deaths 
in  the  whirling  snow  the  crowning  indictment  of  their 
folly,  and  the  final  proof  that  the  world  of  men  suf- 
fered nothing  but  total  .loss  in  this  foolhardy  expedi- 
tion? So  it  might  seem  to  the  sober  judgment  of  the 
mind.  But  not  so  has  this  experience  touched  the  hearts 
of  humankind.  The  world  has  already  enrolled  these 
noble  five  among  the  heroes  of  all  time.  Everywhere  do 
men  applaud  not  merely  their  courage  but  their  wisdom. 
Even  in  the  face  of  ultimate  and  complete  disaster,  un- 
der the  most  painful  circumstances  possible,  do  we  de- 
clare that  the  undertaking  was  well  worth  while,  and  the 
five  not  to  have  died  in  vain.  What  would  become  of 
the  race  if  men  were  not  ready  to  take  supreme  hazards 
of  this  kind,  and  did  not  ever  find  opportunity  for  such 
hazards?  What  were  Englishmen  if  this  were  not  the 
type  and  symbol  of  what  they  all  would  do,  had  they  all 
the  coveted  chance?  "Here  surely,"  says  our  author, 
"  we  have  a  kind  of  heroism  which  it  would  daunt  the 
courage  of  any  .  .  .  doctrinaire  to  explain  by  the 
profit-and-loss  theory  or  to  analyse  by  the  ordinary 
processes  of  reason  at  all." 

Now  what  is  true  here  of  "  Captain  Scott's  last  trip," 
says  Professor  Cramb,  is  true  in  an  even  more  perfect 
and  sublime  way  of  war.  "  There  is  something  in  war, 
after  all,  that  is  analogous  to  this  heroism  in  the  Ant- 
arctic zone,  something  that  transcends  reason."  The 


IS  PEACE  TO  BE  DESIRED?  309 

same  idea  that  led  Scott  and  his  comrades  into  the 
frozen  regions  of  the  Antarctic  leads  thousands  of  men 
on  to  the  field  of  battle  ;  and  the  same  ideal  that  justifies 
the  death  of  the  explorer  in  the  snowy  hut,  justifies  the 
death  of  the  soldier  in  the  bloody  trench.  In  both 
cases,  we  have  life  redeemed  from  all  that  is  selfish,  sor- 
did and  profane,  and  thus  lifted,  as  it  were  by  some 
divine  transcendence,  to  the  highest  degree  of  nobility 
and  honour.  Why  talk,  in  such  a  presence,  of  loss  or 
pain?  Why  measure  cost,  or  pity  suffering?  What 
even  is  death,  in  the  glory  of  such  a  life?  "In  war 
and  the  right  of  war  man  has  a  possession  which  he 
values  above  religion,  above  industry  and  above  social 
comforts ;  in  war  man  values  the  power  which  it  affords 
to  life  of  rising  above  life,  the  power  which  the  spirit 
of  man  possesses  to  pursue  the  Ideal.  In  all  life  at  its 
height,  in  thought,  art,  and  action,  there  is  a  tendency 
to  become  transcendental ;  and  if  we  examine  the  wars 
of  England  and  of  Germany  in  the  past  we  find  govern- 
ing these  wars  throughout  this  higher  power  of  heroism, 
or  of  Something,  at  least,  which  transcends  reason." 

Here,  now,  are  some  of  the  arguments  which  have 
persuaded  good  men  and  true  to  justify  war  and  view 
with  apprehension  the  possible  establishment  of  perma- 
nent and  universal  peace  upon  the  earth.  These  argu- 
ments of  course  have  received  their  extreme  expression 
in  our  time  in  the  writings  of  such  men  as  Treitschke, 
Steinmetz,  and  Bernhardi,  whose  teachings  so  largely 
explain  the  militaristic  ideals  of  modern  Germany.  To 
these  men  war  is  no  longer  a  mere  occasion  for  the  ex- 


810  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

pression  of  virtue,  as  with  Aristotle  and  Cramb,  or  a 
mere  condition  of  the  development  of  human  genius,  as 
with  Ruskin ;  but  is  itself  become  synonymous  with  al! 
of  virtue  and  of  genius.  From  their  point  of  view,  the 
individual  lives  primarily  in  order  to  fight,  and  society 
is  organised  primarily  for  the  better  functioning  of  war- 
fare. Military  efficiency  is  the  coefficient  of  individual 
and  social  virtue. 

But  we  do  not  have  to  go  to  any  such  extravagant 
lengths  as  this  to  understand  what  is  in  essence  involved 
in  this  whole  attitude  toward  the  problem  of  war  and 
peace.  At  bottom,  of  course,  is  the  feeling  that  peace 
sooner  or  later  means  the  degeneracy  of  the  individual 
and  the  corruption  of  the  state.  In  times  of  peace  men 
find  security,  and  security  brings  with  it  ease,  selfish- 
ness, cowardice,  luxury.  The  body  grows  soft,  the 
mind  sluggish,  the  spirit  feeble.  Hazards  are  no 
longer  sought,  nor  perils  courted.  The  "  transcen- 
dental," to  quote  Professor  Cramb's  word,  disappears 
altogether,  and  the  dryrot  of  routine,  surfeit,  pleasure, 
mild  content,  usurps  its  place.  With  the  inevitable  re- 
sult of  slow  decay  —  final  death !  It  is  from  this  ig- 
noble and  disgusting  fall  that  war  enables  men  and  na- 
tions to  escape.  War  means  courage,  sacrifice,  suffer- 
ing, consecration  to  a  great  ideal  and  love  of  a  noble 
cause.  It  means  the  striving  of  the  deepest  impulses 
of  the  soul.  In  war  a  man  is  fronted  with  reality  both 
inside  and  outside.  His  body  is  toughened,  his  heart 
cleansed,  his  spirit  challenged.  Now  or  never  must  he 
prove  his  manhood.  Now  or  never  must  he  be  his  own 


IS  PEACE  TO  BE  DESIRED?  311 

best  self.  Now  or  never  must  he  live  —  and  die !  War, 
in  other  words,  is  the  great  agent  of  moral  redemption. 
It  purifies  and  ennobles  men,  and  by  uniting  men  into 
one  supreme  and  all-absorbing  adventure  of  divine  faith, 
lifts  nations  to  the  farthest  pinnacles  of  purity  and 
honour.  Theodore  Roosevelt  sums  up  this  entire 
gospel,  in  his  The  Strenuous  Life,  where,  on  the  one 
hand,  he  deplores  peace  on  the  ground  that  it  trains  a 
nation  "  to  a  career  of  unwarlike  and  isolated  ease  " 
and  thus  dooms  it  "  to  go  down  in  the  end  before  other 
nations  which  have  not  lost  the  manly  and  adventurous 
qualities  " ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  applauds  war  on 
the  ground  that  "  by  war  alone  can  (men)  acquire  those 
virile  qualities  necessary  to  win  in  the  stern  strife  of 
actual  life." 

in 

What,  now,  is  to  be  said  in  answer  to  this  plea  on 
behalf  of  war?  Can  these  considerations,  which  we  have 
just  been  interpreting,  be  regarded  as  sound?  If  so, 
what  becomes  of  humanity's  long-cherished  dream  of 
peace  on  earth,  goodwill  toward  men?  And  if  not  so, 
why  not  so?  Where  stands  to-day,  in  short,  this  whole 
problem  of  the  desirability  of  permanent  and  universal 
peace  ? 

First  of  all,  it  must  be  seen  that  this  whole  argu- 
ment on  behalf  of  war  is  based  upon  a  fundamental 
misconception  of  the  character  of  war  and  its  effect 
upon  the  life  of  the  individual  and  of  the  state.  That 
there  is  much  of  the  heroic  and  the  sublime  in  the  spec- 


312  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

tacle  of  an  entire  people  putting  aside  the  quiet  pur- 
suits and  comfortable  pleasures  of  peace  and  entering 
steadfastly  and  unafraid  upon  the  awful  perils  and 
miseries  of  armed  conflict,  goes  without  saying.  Doc- 
tor Rainsford  was  not  wholly  wrong  when  he  described 
the  present  situation  in  Europe  as  a  supreme  justifica- 
tion of  the  everlasting  reality  of  religion,  in  the  best 
sense  of  that  word,  since  in  it  we  see  the  glad  sacrifice, 
on  the  part  of  millions  of  men  and  women,  of  "  the  best 
they  have  to  the  best  they  know."  But  to  argue,  from 
this  unquestioned  fact,  that  war  ennobles  human  nature 
and  dignifies  the  life  of  nations,  is  certainly  a  gross  ex- 
aggeration. -Nay,  more,  it  is  an  untruth !  War,  in 
the  last  analysis,  as  we  have  seen,  is  a  reversion  to  sav- 
agery ;  and  its  advent  marks  the  awakening  from  slum- 
ber of  all  that  is  beastly  in  the  human  heart.  Man  is 
at  best  a  complex  of  the  animal  and  the  human.  On  the 
one  hand  are  the  primitive  passions  of  the  flesh,  tamed 
and  rigidly  controlled  by  the  customs,  habits,  and  regu- 
lations of  ordinary  social  intercourse.  On  the  other 
hand,  are  the  attributes  of  the  spirit  —  intelligence, 
sympathy,  generosity,  mercy,  faith,  love  —  which  mark 
a  man  distinctly  as  a  man  and  which  constitute  the  very 
basis  of  his  relationship  with  his  fellows.  War  is  in 
essence  chaos  and  not  order,  discord  and  not  concord, 
hatred  and  not  goodwill.  It  brings  liberation  to  the 
lowest  and  suppression  to  the  highest  that  man  knows. 
Let  the  passion  of  war  sweep  widely  through  a  nation, 
and  instantly  the  beast,  that  is  lurking  in  every  human 
heart,  is  freed  from  its  social  bonds  and  the  spiritual 


IS  PEACE  TO  BE  DESIRED?  313 

being  which  is  his  best  self  is  instantly  imprisoned  or 
destroyed.  Courage  remains,  but  it  is  the  courage  of 
the  frenzied  beast  and  not  of  the  patient  martyr.  Sac- 
rifice appears,  but  it  is  the  sacrifice  of  madness  and  not 
of  calm  deliberation.  And  in  all  and  through  all  and 
over  all  are  lust,  brutality,  vengeance,  hatred,  blood. 

This  present  conflict  has  brought  us  amazing  evi- 
dences of  this  terrific  psychological  phenomenon.  See, 
for  example,  the  experiences  of  Dr.  Frederick  Lynch,  as 
narrated  in  his  little  book,  Through  Europe  on  the  Eve 
of  War!  On  one  day,  as  he  tells  us,  he  saw  merchants, 
clerks,  farmers,  peasants,  husbands,  fathers,  brothers 
in  France  and  Germany,  going  quietly  about  their  busi- 
ness. On  the  next  day  had  come  the  declaration  of 
war,  and  instantly  these  men  were  transformed  into 
beasts.  "  We  saw  great  crowds  drunk  with  brandy, 
and  howling  '  To  hell  with  Germany ! '  or  '  To  hell  with 
France !  *  We  saw  French  soldiers  try  to  pull  a 
German  out  of  a  train  window,  while  he  clung  to  his 
two  little  babies  that  he  was  trying  to  get  into  Switzer- 
land. We  saw  Germans  yank  a  Russian  and  his  wife 
out  of  a  train,  and  so  frighten  the  wife  that  her  little 
baby  could  not  nurse  for  two  days.  .  .  .  At  one  sta- 
tion, I  saw  three  young  men,  flushed  with  drink,  leap 
from  a  car  standing  on  a  side-track,  and  try  to  pull 
three  young  girls  into  the  car  on  to  the  straw.  .  .  . 
The  thousands  of  men  we  saw  howling  in  all  the  cities  of 
Europe  were  not  men  any  longer.  They  had  become 
beasts.  .  .  .  They  howled  for  only  three  things  — 
drink,  women,  and  blood  of  their  brothers."  The  same 


314  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

kind  of  testimony  was  brought  to  me  personally  by  a 
famous  theological  teacher  of  this  country,  who  chanced 
to  be  travelling  from  Belfort  to  Paris  on  the  first  night 
of  French  mobilisation.  His  train  was  packed  with  ex- 
cited reservists  hastening  to  the  colours  —  fresh,  eager 
young  men  who  had  only  the  day  before  been  living 
peacefully  and  gently  in  their  homes.  This  night, 
however,  they  were  animals.  Language  of  the  vilest 
description  was  shouted  through  the  cars.  Acts  of 
indescribable  indecency  were  openly  and  boastfully  per- 
petrated. Men  were  tortured,  women  insulted,  children 
terrified.  "  Only  one  word  can  describe  those  fifteen 
hours  with  those  young  soldiers,"  said  my  friend,  "  and 
that  is  '  hell ! ' :  And  all  this  before  the  fighting  had 
begun,  or  a  single  drop  of  blood  had  been  shed !  The 
mere  call  to  arms  had  liberated  "  the  ape  and  tiger,"  and 
the  mad  orgy  of  lust  and  fury  was  on.  Talk  about  war 
purifying,  ennobling,  strengthening  men !  Talk  about 
war  instilling  patience,  sacrifice,  heroism  in  the  human 
heart!  War  is  the  corrupter  of  virtue,  the  despoiler 
of  purity,  the  murderer  of  courage,  honour,  and  chiv- 
alry. Some  men  of  imagination  and  self-control  it  lifts 
and  glorifies.  But  the  average  man  it  degrades  to  the 
base  level  of  the  brute.  Doctor  Lynch  is  perfectly  right 
when  he  speaks  of  "  the  beast  which  such  a  crisis  as 
this  [war]  reveals  as  only  slumbering." 

And  if  this  be  true  of  the  individual,  it  is  no  less  true 
also  of  the  nation.  John  Ruskin  has  spoken  eloquently 
of  the  awakening  of  genius  under  the  stimulus  of  the 
deep  emotion  stirred  by  war.  Cramb  bears  testimony 


IS  PEACE  TO  BE  DESIRED?  315 

to  the  transcendental  quality  that  enters  into  the  soul 
of  a  people  under  the  unifying  idealism  of  nationalistic 
adventure.  These  phenomena  have  again  and  again 
appeared,  of  course.  But  they  are  momentary,  and 
pass  almost  as  rapidly  as  they  appear,  to  be  succeeded 
by  fatigue,  indifference,  cynicism,  and  finally  out-and- 
out  corruption.  Not  the  state  of  a  nation  at  the  out- 
break of  war  or  during  the  continuance  of  war,  but  after 
the  war  is  over  —  this  is  the  test  of  the  spiritual  conse- 
quences which  have  really  been  engendered.  We  only 
have  to  consider  the  death  of  the  Athenian  democracy 
after  the  age  of  Pericles,  the  spiritual  as  well  as  the 
material  prostration  of  Germany  after  the  Thirty 
Years'  War,  the  unspeakable  political  and  business  cor- 
ruption rife  in  America  in  the  decades  following  the  true 
idealism  of  the  Civil  War,  to  understand  what  war  does 
to  a  nation.  Felix  Adler  tells  the  whole  story  in  a 
trenchant  observation  contained  in  a  recent  sermon  on 
war  and  peace.1  "  I  happened  to  be  in  Berlin,"  he  said, 
"  during  and  after  the  Franco-Prussian  War,  and  I 
remember  well  the  kind  of  vertigo  that  seized  upon  the 
people  after  the  payment  of  the  French  indemnity. 
The  defeat  for  France  was  no  less  a  defeat  for  what  was 
best  in  the  German  soul." 

The  case  against  war  as  a  source  of  human  misery 
and  degradation  would  seem  to  be  decisive.  Not  on  this 
ground  alone,  however,  are  our  militaristic  friends  to  be 
converted  to  the  acceptance  of  the  prospect  of  perma- 

i  See  the  December  1914  number  of  The  Standard,  published  by 
the  Ethical  Culture  Society. 


316  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

nent  and  universal  peace.  Granted  that  all  you  say 
about  war,  they  argue,  is  true.  Still  is  it  also  true  that 
war  cultivates  certain  qualities  of  soul,  both  individual 
and  social,  which  are  indispensable,  as  you  yourself  ad- 
mit, and  which  cannot  be  obtained  in  any  other  way. 
Bad  as  war  undoubtedly  is,  therefore,  it  still  would  be  a 
calamity  to  abolish  it  altogether  and  thus  lose  these  es- 
sential elements  of  the  highest  type  of  life.  Supreme 
sacrifice,  perfect  heroism,  purest  honour  —  these  are  in- 
separably related  to  war,  and  without  war  would  vanish 
altogether. 

This  brings  us  to  the  second  point  which  must  be 
made  in  answer  to  the  militaristic  plea  on  behalf  of  war. 
I  refer  to  the  fact  that  all  the  virtues  which  can  by 
any  possibility  be  ascribed  to  war  must  be  regarded 
as  by-products,  and  that  no  by-product  has  ever  yet 
been  accepted  by  the  conscience  of  mankind  as  adequate 
justification  for  the  continuance  of  a  recognised  abomi- 
nation.1 I  suppose,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  there  has 
never  been  any  single  ill  that  flesh  is  heir  to  which  has 
not  brought  along  with  it  some  incidental  good  as  a  kind 
of  by-product  of  its  essential  evil.  Take  gambling,  for 
example.  There  can  be  no  question  that  this  pernicious 
habit  has  the  indirect  result,  upon  the  individuals  ad- 
dicted to  its  practice,  of  fostering  undubitable  and 
worthy  virtues  in  their  hearts.  There  are  qualities  in 
the  typical  gambler  that  win  the  admiration  and  affec- 
tion of  us  all.  He  has  self-control,  patience,  easy  mas- 

i  See  Dr.  Adler's  elucidation  of  this  point  in  the  address  just 
referred  to. 


IS  PEACE  TO  BE  DESIRED?  317 

tery  of  his  emotions;  he  can  be  calm  in  moments  of 
tense  excitement,  and  is  "  a  good  sport "  in  the  sense 
that  he  can  face  misfortune  without  complaint;  he  is 
care-free,  easy-going,  optimistic,  as  delightfully  irre- 
sponsible as  a  little  child ;  especially  is  he  generous,  sym- 
pathetic, as  quick  to  give  money  to  a  friend  as  he  is  to 
win  it  from  an  opponent  at  the  table.  The  gambler  is 
not  all  bad,  by  any  means.  But  these  virtues,  such  as 
they  are,  are  all  incidental,  by-the-way.  At  bottom, 
gambling  is  a  disease  which  eats  away  the  fundamentals 
of  character  as  surely  as  cancer  eats  away  the  vitals  of  a 
physical  organism.  The  experience  of  unnumbered  gen- 
erations demonstrates  the  fact  that  this  vice  is  essen- 
tially disintegrative  of  all  those  higher  qualities  of  mind 
and  conscience  which  go  to  the  making  of  manhood  in 
the  right  sense  of  that  great  word.  Therefore  is  it  uni- 
versally agreed  that  gambling  must  be  fought  to  the 
death,  whatever  the  incidental  losses  to  be  suffered  in 
the  destruction  of  its  incidental  by-products  of  good. 

Another  and  different  kind  of  illustration  is  furnished 
us  by  the  great  political  and  military  institution  of 
feudalism.  Here  was  an  order  of  society  which  fulfilled 
a  vital  and  indispensable  function  in  the  development  of 
European  life,  and  which  introduced  many  admirable 
and  even  beautiful  social  features.  One  has  only  to  call 
to  mind  all  that  is  suggested  by  the  single  word  "  chiv- 
alry "  to  understand  something  of  the  good  that  can  be 
said  of  this  mediaeval  system  of  society.  The  history 
of  mankind  has  nothing  finer  to  show  us  than  the  per- 
fect knight,  Sir  Galahad,  with  his  purity,  his  honour, 


318  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

his  courage,  his  blameless  service  of  the  poor  and  weak, 
his  stainless  reverence  for  womanhood.  Since  chivalry 
disappeared,  the  world  has  produced  no  type  of  man- 
hood comparable  to  that  which  was  the  glory  of  the  feu- 
dalism of  the  Middle  Ages.  And  yet  chivalry  had  to 
go,  since  it  was  the  by-product  of  a  social  order  which, 
in  the  course  of  centuries,  had  become  the  citadel  of  ig- 
norance, despotism,  and  oppression.  Humanity  could 
not  afford  to  sacrifice  the  life  and  happiness  of  the 
masses  of  mankind,  in  order  that  a  few  chosen  knights 
might  manifest  and  enjoy  the  unsullied  privileges  of 
an  Arthurian  Round  Table. 

And  so  the  illustrations  might  be  multiplied,  all  point- 
ing to  the  conclusion  that  no  evil  can  be  fostered  merely 
because  of  the  by-product  of  good  which  may  attend  it. 
We  do  not  burn  down  our  cities,  because  the  San  Fran- 
cisco fire  gave  to  the  citizens  of  that  community  the 
chance  to  build  a  healthier  and  more  beautiful  city  than 
would  have  otherwise  been  possible.  We  do  not  argue 
against  the  extinction  of  disease,  because  leprosy  gave 
us  Father  Damien  and  tuberculosis  Doctor  Trudeau. 
We  do  not  plead  for  the  continuance  of  religious  perse- 
cution, on  the  ground  that  saints  and  martyrs  are  the 
certain  result  of  the  sword,  the  faggot,  and  the  gibbet. 
And  why  is  not  exactly  the  same  thing  true  about  our 
attitude  toward  war?  WThat  could  be  more  absurd,  or 
more  cruel,  than  to  eulogise  war  and  argue  for  its  occa- 
sional perpetration,  on  the  ground  that  it  never  fails 
to  produce  a  few  heroes  and  to  stir  momentarily  the 
noblest  passions  of  national  life !  Let  us  admit  the 


IS  PEACE  TO  BE  DESIRED?  319 

truth  of  all  that  the  most  enthusiastic  of  militarists  can 
say  on  behalf  of  the  service  rendered  by  international 
conflict  to  the  cause  of  individual  and  social  virtue. 
Let  us  agree  with  Aristotle  that  the  highest  type  of 
courage  is  impossible  without  war  —  let  us  endorse  the 
suggestion  of  Professor  Cramb  that  war  does  for  mil- 
lions of  men  what  the  perils  of  the  Antarctic  did  for 
Scott  and  his  four  comrades  —  let  us  endorse  the  ver- 
dict of  Ruskin  that  no  deep  feeling,  and  therefore  no 
great  art,  has  ever  been  inspired  by  times  of  peace ! 
Still,  is  it  not  true  that  these  things  are  by-products, 
and  in  themselves  not  vital  enough  to  outweigh  the 
abominations  which  comprise  the  very  essence  of  this 
hideous  business?  Look  at  Europe  to-day  —  its 
slaughtered  men,  its  weeping  women,  its  homeless  chil- 
dren —  its  wounded,  sick,  and  imprisoned  —  its  devas- 
tated fields  and  ruined  cities  —  its  lost  faiths,  shattered 
hopes,  debased  ideals  —  its  new  hatreds,  lusts,  and  bar- 
barisms —  and  who  can  say  that  war  brings  us  anything 
that  can  compensate  for  such  as  these?  War  is  at  bot- 
tom evil ;  and,  whatever  its  incidental  goods,  it  must, 
like  other  evils,  be  abolished ! 

IV 

Not  yet,  however,  have  we  answered  the  contentions 
of  those  who  sincerely  deplore  the  prospect  of  the  pass- 
ing of  war  and  the  coming  of  peace ;  for  it  is  just  these 
men  who  will  argue,  in  answer  to  our  questions,  that 
war  does  bring  compensations  even  for  such  horrors 
as  are  this  very  day  before  our  face  and  eyes.  Nay, 


320  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

they  even  go  so  far  as  to  reverse  the  situation,  and 
declare  that  it  is  the  horrors  which  are  the  real  inci- 
dentals or  by-products  of  war,  and  it  is  the  strengthen- 
ing of  hearts  and  stirring  of  ideals  which  constitute  the 
essentials.  It  is  just  here,  on  this  matter  of  relative 
viewpoint,  that  the  militarist  and  pacifist  usually 
fail  to  find  a  common  ground  for  discussion;  and  just 
here,  therefore,  that  the  latter  usually  fails  to  make 
any  impression  upon  the  former.  After  this  advocate 
of  peace  has  said  all  that  can  be  said  in  regard  to  the 
abomination  of  armed  conflict,  the  Bernhardis  and  the 
Crambs  still  support  the  position  that  these  features 
of  war,  while  of  course  regrettable,  are  comparatively 
unimportant,  and  are  overshadowed  by  these  other 
things  which  are  absolutely  dependable  upon  the  con- 
tinuance, at  intervals  at  least,  of  battles,  sieges,  and 
campaigns.  This  is  the  attitude,  strange  as  it  may 
seem,  even  of  a  man  like  Prof.  William  James.  "  One 
cannot  meet  [these  considerations],"  he  says  in  his 
essay  on  The  Moral  Equivalent  of  War,  "  by  mere 
counter-insistency  on  war's  expensiveness  and  horror. 
The  horror  makes  the  thrill;  and  when  the  question  is 
of  getting  the  extremest  and  supremest  out  of  human 
nature,  talk  of  expense  sounds  ignominious.  The 
weakness  of  so  much  negative  criticism  is  evident.  .  .  . 
The  military  party  denies  neither  the  bestiality,  nor 
the  horror,  nor  the  expense ;  it  only  says  that  these 
things  tell  but  half  the  story.  It  only  says  that  war  is 
worth  them ;  that,  taking  human  nature  as  a  whole,  its 
wars  are  its  best  protection  against  its  weaker  and  more 


IS  PEACE  TO  BE  DESIRED? 

cowardly  self,  and  that  mankind  cannot  afford  to  adopt 
a  peace-economy." 

In  considering  this  final  point,  it  is  necessary  to  em- 
phasise at  once  the  apparently  irreconcilable  dilemma 
which  is  always  presented  by  the  militarist,  as  he  argues 
this  important  point.  Always  does  he  present  the  two 
extremes  of  war  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  dull,  cowardly, 
materialistic,  degenerate  peace  upon  the  other.  Al- 
ways does  he  assume  that  the  virtues  inherent  in  war  can 
be  obtained  under  no  other  conditions  and  purchased  at 
no  other  price,  than  those  provided  by  the  slaughter 
and  devastation  of  armed  conflict.  Not  even  with  Aris- 
totle is  there  any  golden  mean  in  this  case.  It  is  one 
thing  or  the  other  —  either  war  with  its  glorified  heroes 
and  redeemed  nations,  or  peace  with  its  corruption  and 
decay. 

Now  we  may  perhaps  be  pardoned  for  saying  at  this 
point  that  this  kind  of  rigid  alternative  irresistibly  re- 
minds us  of  the  familiar  Elian  essay  of  Charles  Lamb, 
entitled  A  Dissertation  upon  Roast  Pig.  This  is  the 
highly  amusing  story  of  how  a  Chinaman  came  home 
one  day  and  found  to  his  dismay  that  his  house  had  been 
destroyed  by  fire.  While  poking  round  in  the  smoking 
ruins  of  the  little  building,  he  chanced  to  come  upon  the 
body  of  a  pig  that  had  been  caught  in  the  flames  and 
burned  to  death.  At  once  he  noticed  that  the  roasted 
flesh  gave  off  an  exceedingly  fragrant  smell.  Then, 
touching  the  meat  with  his  finger  and  applying  the  finger 
to  his  mouth,  he  found  that  it  had  a  taste  which  was 
delicious  beyond  belief.  Devouring  the  animal  with  in- 


NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

finite  satisfaction,  he  forthwith  proceeded  to  tell  the 
good  news  to  his  neighbours.  Whereupon  every  man  of 
them  proceeded  to  put  his  pig  in  his  house,  and  then 
burn  the  house  to  the  ground,  in  order  that  he  too 
might  enjoy  a  feast  of  roast  pork. 

It  is  of  course  unnecessary  to  point  out  the  ridiculous 
side  of  this  story  to  those  who  know  full  well  that  it  is 
possible  to  roast  a  pig  without  destroying  homes  by 
fire.  But  wherein  is  it  any  more  absurd  for  the  China- 
man to  argue  that  you  must  burn  your  house  in  order 
to  obtain  a  toothsome  dinner,  than  it  is  for  the  mili- 
tarist to  argue  that  you  must  destroy  your  civilisation 
by  the  ravaging  of  fire  and  sword,  in  order  to  obtain  the 
priceless  treasures  of  martial  virtue  in  individual  and 
nation?  It  is  perfectly  possible  to  roast  a  pig  and  still 
preserve  your  house  from  destruction ;  and  in  exactly 
the  same  way  it  is  possible  to  develop  every  virtue  in- 
herent in  the  mad  struggle  of  international  war,  and 
still  preserve  the  lives  of  men  from  slaughter  and  the 
material  structure  of  society  from  ruin.  Turn  to  that 
very  book  by  Professor  Cramb  wherein  war  is  described 
as  an  indispensable  condition  of  the  development  of 
those  transcendental  aspects  of  life,  which  defy  all 
standards  of  rational  expediency.  When  Professor 
Cramb  wants  to  tell  us  what  he  means  by  these  transcen- 
dental aspects  of  life,  what  does  he  do?  Does  he  cite 
examples  of  courage  and  endurance  from  the  field  of 
battle?  Does  he  tell  stories  of  heroic  daring  and  sub- 
lime sacrifice  in  time  of  war?  Not  at  all!  On  the  con- 
trary, he  leaves  the  smoke  and  flame  of  battle  far  be- 


IS  PEACE  TO  BE  DESIRED?  323 

hind,  takes  us  away  to  the  wastes  of  the  Antarctic, 
and  points  us  to  Gates  walking  out  into  the  storm  to 
his  certain  death,  and  to  Captain  Scott  dying  patiently 
and  bravely  in  his  snow-hut.  Where  is  the  war  which 
was  indispensable  to  the  virtue  of  these  men?  Wherein 
was  the  period  of  profound  peace,  in  which  they  set 
forth  upon  their  immortal  quest,  incompatible  with 
sacrifice,  heroism,  and  manly  love?  This  whole  tale  is 
a  part  of  the  annals  of  peace,  is  it  not?  —  and  yet  it  is 
this  which  Professor  Cramb  cites  most  naturally  as  the 
illustration  of  that  which  war  alone  can  accomplish. 

Inconsistency  could  seem  to  go  no  farther,  unless  it  is 
in  Professor  Cramb's  further  statement  of  the  great 
victories  that  man  has  achieved,  in  days  gone  by,  in 
pursuit  of  his  ideals.  He  speaks  here  of  the  success 
which  man  has  won  in  his  "  war  against  disease,  war 
against  nature,  the  forest,  the  sea,  the  vicissitudes  of 
season  and  of  climate."  War,  not  against  other  men, 
but  against  nature  and  natural  evil!  War,  in  time  of 
peace !  War,  under  conditions  of  peace !  What, 
pray,  can  Professor  Cramb  mean  by  pleading  for  the 
everlasting  continuance  of  war  with  swords  and 
guns  against  our  fellows,  when  here  is  war  right  to  our 
hand  against  things  which  it  is  beneficent  to  over- 
come and  destroy!  Peace,  by  Professor  Cramb's 
own  testimony,  is  not  wholly  incompatible  with  struggle, 
and  fight,  and  triumph.  Peace,  if  this  be  true,  is  not 
necessarily  a  condition  of  stagnation,  cowardice,  dull 
content,  and  easy  pleasure.  If  armed  conflict  between 
international  bodies  of  men  has  any  virtue  at  all,  it  is 


324  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

only  because  it  gives  to  the  human  heart  a  foe  to  chal- 
lenge, a  goal  to  achieve,  a  victory  to  win.  And  lo ! 
here  do  we  find  that  peace  hath  its  foes  and  goals  and 
victories,  no  less  renowned  than  war  —  that  peace  can 
foster  martial  heroism  and  high  idealism  as  well  as  war 
—  that  everything  that  war  can  give  can  be  given 
equally  by  peace,  and  without  any  of  the  horrors  which 
make  war  an  intolerable  disaster ! 

It  is  this  idea  which  William  James  puts  forth  so 
impressively  in  his  essay  on  The  Moral  Equivalent  of 
War.  He  points  out  the  foes  of  disease,  national 
cataclysms,  social  corruptions,  etc.,  which  are  waiting 
to  be  fought  and  overcome.  He  shows  us  the  perilous 
work  at  sea,  in  mines,  on  steel  buildings,  which  is  ever 
waiting  to  be  done.  And  he  calls  upon  men  to  organise 
themselves  to  fight  these  battles  of  peace,  just  as  now 
they  organise  themselves  for  war  against  their  neigh- 
bours. "  In  the  future  toward  which  mankind  seems 
drifting,  we  must  still  subject  ourselves  collectively,"  he 
says,  "  to  those  severities  which  answer  to  our  real  posi- 
tion upon  this  only  partly  hospitable  globe.  We  must 
make  new  energies  and  hardihoods  continue  the  man- 
liness to  which  the  military  mind  so  faithfully  clings." 
And  then  he  illustrates  his  "  idea  more  concretely,"  by 
conceiving  "  instead  of  military  conscription,  a  con- 
scription of  the  whole  youthful  population  to  form 
for  a  certain  number  of  years  a  part  of  the  army  en- 
listed against  nature.  .  .  .  To  coal  and  iron  mines, 
to  freight  trains,  to  fishing  fleets,  to  road-build- 


IS  PEACE  TO  BE  DESIRED?  325 

ing  and  trench-making  .  .  .  would  our  youths  be 
drafted  off  ...  to  get  the  childishness  knocked  out  of 
them,  and  to  come  back  into  society  with  healthier  sym- 
pathies and  sobered  ideas.  .  .  .  Such  a  conscription 
.  .  .  would  preserve  in  the  midst  of  a  pacific  civilisa- 
tion the  manly  virtues  which  the  military  party  is  so 
afraid  of  seeing  disappear  in  peace." 


Here,  now,  is  the  full  and  final  answer  to  the  mili- 
tarist. First,  the  virtues  of  war  are  grossly  exagger- 
ated. Secondly,  these  virtues,  whatever  they  are,  are 
mere  by-products,  and  as  such  cannot  be  regarded  as 
adequate  justification  for  the  continuance  of  an  insti- 
tution essentially  evil.  Thirdly,  these  virtues  are  not 
in  themselves  dependent  upon  war,  but  can  be  fostered 
in  peace  organised  for  strife  against  nature  and  her 
ills.  Permanent  and  universal  peace,  if  not  now  de- 
sirable, can  be  made  desirable! 

The  whole  lesson  can  be  summed  up  in  this  single 
word  —  that  our  task  is  not  the  perpetuation  of  war 
for  this  or  any  other  purpose,  but  the  redemption  of 
peace  from  ease,  sloth,  and  corruption.  The  first  con- 
dition of  such  a  redemption  of  peace  is  the  total  and 
permanent  abolition  of  war!  For  so  long  as  war  con- 
tinues to  recur  at  intervals,  man  will  remain  convinced 
that  there  is  nothing  to  fight  against  except  his  brother ; 
and  so  long  as  peace  is  only  a  recurring  interval  from 
strife,  man  will  remain  convinced  that  this  is  but  a  time 


326  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

of  repose  and  idle  enjoyment.  Away,  therefore,  with 
war,  that  worthy  peace  may  come !  Speed  the  night, 
that  morn  at  last  may  break ! 

"  It  is  the  Dawn !    The  Dawn !    The  nations 
From  East  to  West  now  hear  the  cry ! 
Though  all  earth's  blood-red  generations 
By  hate  and  slaughter  climbed  thus  high, 
Here,  on  this  height,  still  to  aspire, 
One  only  path  remains  untrod, 
One  path  of  love  and  peace  climbs  higher. 
Make  straight  that  highway  for  our  God."  1 

i  Alfred  Noyes,  in  The  Wine-Prtst. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  DUTY  AND  OPPORTUNITY  OF 
AMERICA  TO-DAY 


"  It  is  a  beautiful  picture  in  Grecian  story  that  there  was  at 
least  one  spot,  the  small -island  of  Delos,  dedicated  to  the  gods 
and  kept  at  all  times  sacred  from  War.  No  hostile  foot  ever 
pressed  this  kindly  soil,  and  citizens  of  all  countries  met  here 
beneath  the  aegis  of  invincible  Peace.  So  let  us  dedicate  our  be- 
loved country.  .  .  .  The  Temple  of  Honour  shall  be  enclosed  by 
the  Temple  of  Concord,  that  it  may  never  more  be  entered  through 
any  portal  of  War;  the  horn  of  Abundance  shall  overflow  at  its 
gates;  the  angel  of  Religion  shall  be  the  guide  over  its  steps  of 
flashing  adamant;  while  within  its  happy  courts,  purged  of  Vio- 
lence and  Wrong,  Justice  shall  rear  her  serene  and  majestic 
front.  .  .  . 

"  And  while  seeking  these  fruitful  glories  for  ourselves,  let  us 
strive  for  their  extension  to  other  lands.  Let  the  bugles  sound 
the  Truce  of  God  to  the  whole  world  forever.  Not  to  one  people, 
but  to  every  people,  let  the  glad  tidings  go.  .  .  .  History  dwells 
with  fondness  on  the  reverent  homage  bestowed  by  massacring 
soldiers  upon  the  spot  occupied  by  the  sepulchre  of  the  Lord. 
Vain  man !  why  confine  regard  to  a  few  feet  of  sacred  mould  ? 
The  whole  earth  is  the  sepulchre  of  the  Lord;  nor  can  any  right- 
eous man  profane  any  part  thereof." —  Charles  Sumner,  in  The 
True  Grandeur  of  Nations. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE    DUTY    AND    OPPORTUNITY    OF    AMEEICA    TO-DAY 

THE  crisis  now  facing  Europe  is  apparent.  The  prob- 
abilities of  destruction,  blood-letting,  exhaustion,  rever- 
sion, are  fast  becoming  realities  before  our  eyes.  What 
we  are  not  seeing  so  clearly  is  the  fact  that  this  crisis 
involves  not  merely  the  nations  which  are  directly  con- 
cerned as  belligerents  in  the  conflict,  but  the  neutral 
countries  as  well;  and  first  of  all,  among  these,  the 
United  States.  Not  only  the  destinies  of  Germany, 
France,  Russia,  England,  Austria,  Italy,  are  hanging 
in  the  balance,  but  also  the  destiny  of  America,  even 
though  the  Republic  continues  to  hold  aloof  from  actual 
hostilities  and  thus  does  not  in  any  way  become  involved 
in  the  armed  struggle  of  life  and  death. 


The  occasion  of  this  stupendous  crisis  for  America 
is  of  course  the  amazing  discovery  that  war  in  its  most 
hideous  form  can  burst  upon  the  world  without  warn- 
ing, and  sweep  down  not  merely  upon  those  nations 
which  have  interests  to  serve  upon  the  field  of  battle, 
but  also  upon  those  nations  which  are  least  prepared 
for,  and  certainly  least  desirous  of,  its  coming.  This 
has  given  us,  for  the  first  time  in  our  history,  a  feeling 

of  insecurity  which  is  amounting  almost  to  panic.     And 

329 


330  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

this  feeling  is  presenting  us  with  a  problem  of  na- 
tional policy  which  is  new  to  our  political  and  social 
life.  Already  the  problem  has  crystallised  into  a  defi- 
nite dilemma.  Are  we  to  continue  to  remain  faithful 
to  the  pacifist  ideals  which  have  made  America  unique 
among  modern  nations;  or  shall  we  follow  the  rest  of 
the  world  in  building  up  huge  armaments  and  joining 
questionable  political  alliances?  Are  we  to  continue  to 
rely  upon  the  international  policy  of  "  with  malice  to- 
ward none,  with  charity  for  all  "  as  the  sole  protec- 
tion of  the  state ;  or  must  we,  however  reluctantly,  arm 
ourselves  adequately  in  preparation  for  anticipated 
conflicts?  Can  we  still  believe,  as  we  have  hitherto  be- 
lieved, that  "  Salvation  shall  be  (our)  walls  and  bul- 
warks, and  (our)  gates  Praise,"  or  must  we  for  the  first 
time  seek  refuge  behind  the  guns  of  battleships  and  the 
walls  of  fortresses? 

n 

How  these  questions  are  answered,  by  a  large  number 
of  American  citizens,  has  been  made  perfectly  plain  by 
the  vigorous  and  widespread  agitation  in  this  country, 
during  the  last  few  months,  for  the  indefinite  and  rapid 
increase  of  our  armaments.  Some  of  the  men  who  ad- 
vocate this  line  of  action  are  unscrupulous  politicians 
and  professional  soldiers  who  have  personal  interests 
to  serve  and  are  therefore  not  to  be  trusted.  More 
of  these  men,  however,  are  scholars,  educators,  pub- 
lishers, lawyers,  bankers,  business  men,  who  are  abso- 
lutely unselfish,  and  have  no  other  desire  than  that  of 


THE  DUTY  OF  AMERICA  TO-DAY      331 

the  sincere  and  honourable  service  of  the  best  interests 
of  the  Republic.  The  position  of  these  men  is  easily 
stated. 

We  all  of  us  unite,  they  say,  in  deprecating  war  and 
loving  peace.  There  is  nobody  in  America  who  would 
be  guilty  of  such  a  crime  as  that  of  advocating  a  policy 
which  would  make  the  avoidance  of  war  and  the  main- 
tenance of  peace,  on  the  part  of  our  country,  more  diffi- 
cult or  uncertain.  This  present  war  in  Europe,  how- 
ever, has  taught  us  many  things  which  we  never  knew 
before,  or  perhaps  had  forgotten  or  neglected.  And 
first  of  all  among  these  lessons  is  the  fact  that  we  are 
still  living  in  a  world  which  is  disorganised,  undisci- 
plined, and  to  a  very  large  extent  barbaric,  and  there- 
fore a  world  which  is  liable  to  suffer  from  an  outbreak 
of  war  at  any  time.  After  the  fate  of  Belgium  and 
France  in  the  opening  days  of  the  Great  War,  no 
nation  can  regard  itself  as  any  longer  safe  from  hostile 
invasion.  The  best  intentions,  the  most  peaceful  poli- 
cies, the  most  modern  treaties,  the  firmest  reliance  upon 
righteousness  and  goodwill,  cannot  be  counted  upon  to 
preserve  a  country  from  attack.  The  peril  is  imminent, 
for  America  as  for  every  other  people.  Therefore  is 
it  the  part  of  prudence,  to  say  nothing  of  patriotism, 
to  prepare  the  nation  for  what  may  at  any  moment  be- 
come the  inevitable.  As  we  insure  our  lives  against 
accident  and  death,  our  houses  against  fire,  our  prop- 
erty against  burglary,  so  must  we  insure  our  country 
against  war.  And  the  only  known  way  of  doing  this 
to-day,  is  that  of  building  up  an  army  and  a  navy 


332  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

which  shall  be  strong  enough  to  repel  the  attack  of  any 
enemy  which  may  undertake  to  come  against  us. 
Therefore  must  we  build  more  battleships,  double  our 
standing  army,  strengthen  our  fortifications,  perfect 
our  state  militia,  organise  a  trained  reserve,  drill  our 
school-boys  and  college  students.  Such  activity  does 
not  spell  militarism,  or  involve  aggression,  or  overthrow 
our  traditional  policy  of  having  the  military  authorities 
strictly  subordinate  to  the  civil.  It  simply  means  a 
commonsense  recognition  of  the  conditions  prevailing  in 
the  modern  world,  and  a  commonsense  endeavour  to 
meet  these  conditions. 

m 

Without  attempting  to  criticise  this  position  which 
is  being  taken  to-day  by  many  of  our  most  sincere  and 
enlightened  citizens,  it  may  be  well  to  analyse,  with 
some  care,  the  state  of  mind  of  which  it  may  be  re- 
garded as  the  reflection. 

First  of  all,  there  is  behind  this  idea  of  military  pre- 
paredness the  primitive  psychological  phenomenon  of 
fear.  The  advocates  of  great  armaments  are  frankly 
afraid  of  the  terrible  things  which  might  happen  in  this 
country  if  some  foreign  foe  should  assail  us  and  find  us 
incapable  of  defence.  Seeing  a  curious  kind  of  parallel 
between  Belgium,  which  has  for  so  long  been  "  the  cock- 
pit of  Europe,"  is  about  the  size  of  Maryland,  and  has 
some  seven  millions  of  inhabitants,  and  the  United  States 
with  its  geographical  remoteness,  enormous  extent  of 
territory,  and  one  hundred  million  population,  they 


THE  DUTY  OF  AMERICA  TO-DAY      333 

draw  hair-raising  pictures  of  the  bombardment  of  New 
York  by  a  battle  fleet,  and  the  ravaging  of  our  seacoast 
and  interior  by  an  invading  army.  One  of  the  most 
eminent  scientists  in  America,  for  example,  declared 
some  months  ago  in  my  presence  that  we  might  wake 
up  at  any  moment  to  find  the  enemy  at  our  gates,  pre- 
pared to  visit  upon  us  just  such  indignities,  outrages, 
and  injuries  as  have  lately  been  endured  by  the  un- 
happy Belgians.  Which  one  of  the  great  nations  is 
thus  thirsting  for  the  blood  of  America,  is  not  said. 
Which  one,  so  thirsting,  is  in  a  position  at  this  moment 
to  undertake  the  conquest  of  our  country,  we  are  not 
told.  But  in  answer  to  our  natural  inquiry  for  a  bill 
of  specifications,  it  is  triumphantly  asserted  that  such 
a  bill  could  not  have  been  rendered  to  Serbia,  Belgium, 
or  France,  on  the  first  day  of  July,  1914.  The  danger, 
uncertain  as  it  is,  is  most  surely  present,  and  one  can- 
not safely  wait  until  it  discloses  itself,  to  make  ready  to 
encounter  it. 

Behind  this  feeling  of  fear,  there  lies,  as  a  second 
factor  in  the  situation,  a  deep-rooted  distrust  of  the 
character  and  purposes  of  all  the  other  civilised  nations 
of  the  world.  It  is  argued,  with  a  good  deal  of  force, 
that  relations  beween  nations  have  never  been  moralised, 
and  that  therefore  it  is  folly  to  rely  for  security  upon 
pretensions  of  friendship  or  pledges  of  goodwill.  The 
policy  of  every  modern  people,  like  that  of  every  ancient 
people,  is  determined  by  selfish  considerations  of  na- 
tional aggrandisement  and  glory.  Every  nation, 
whether  it  confesses  it  or  not,  is  engaged  in  the  great 


334  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

enterprise  of  world-empire ;  and  anything  which  will  help 
on  this  enterprise,  whether  moral  or  immoral,  friendly 
or  unfriendly  to  a  neighbouring  state,  will  be  done, 
whenever  circumstances  are  propitious.  The  present 
war  is  an  impressive  illustration  of  the  ethics  of  inter- 
national relationships.  To  what  extent  have  morality, 
decency,  goodwill,  controlled  the  conduct  of  any  one  of 
the  nations  involved  in  this  unseemly  quarrel?  Which 
one  has  respected  the  rights  and  privileges  of  its  neigh- 
bours? Which  one  has  held  to  its  plighted  word? 
Which  one  has  risen  to  obedience  of  any  higher  law 
than  that  of  necessity,  self-preservation,  or  self-ag- 
grandisement ?  What  a  nation  wants,  it  takes  —  what 
is  in  its  way,  it  destroys  —  what  it  finds  defenceless,  it 
outrages  and  defies.  America  may  well  be  cautious 
about  taking  its  place  in  a  company  of  international 
freebooters  without  being  carefully  and  fully  armed. 
Our  nation  is  one  which  might  well  be  coveted  by  every 
crowned  head  of  the  world.  South  of  us  are  fair  do- 
minions, which  more  than  one  country  of  Europe  has 
lusted  after,  but  which  we  have  solemnly  sworn  to  de- 
fend against  assault.  Our  world-wide  commerce,  our 
possessions  in  Hawaii  and  the  Philippines,  our  valu- 
able and  strategic  property  in  the  Panama  Canal,  are 
treasures  which  must  be  guarded  against  spoliation. 
Treaties  are  no  protection.  Friendship  may  be  but  the 
mask  of  brigandage.  To  "  speak  softly  and  carry  a 
big  stick  "  is  the  only  wise  policy  in  a  world  wherein  the 
hand  of  every  nation  is  against  that  of  every  other ! 
In  the  third  place,  as  a  final  complication  of  the  situa- 


THE  DUTY  OF  AMERICA  TO-DAY      335 

tion,  there  is  what  we  may  call  a  purely  materialistic 
conception  of  the  significance  of  national  life.  Our 
patriotism  here  in  America,  in  other  words,  is  as  sordid 
and  unspiritual  as  our  business,  our  art,  or  our  re- 
ligion. This  is  shown  clearly  enough  in  the  very  lan- 
guage which  we  use  to  symbolise  our  country.  Thus 
we  speak  of  our  flag,  which  must  never  be  hauled  down 
from  its  proud  position  "  on  high  " ;  we  talk  of  our  soil, 
which  must  never  be  profaned  by  the  footsteps  of  an 
invader;  we  refer  to  our  blood,  which  must  never  be 
shed  by  a  hostile  hand.  America,  to  nine  people  out  of 
ten,  is  simply  a  territory  which  can  be  over-run  and 
conquered  —  a  group  of  cities  which  can  be  bombarded 
and  laid  under  tribute  —  a  certain  amount  of  trade, 
commerce,  and  natural  wealth  which  can  be  seized  —  a 
certain  number  of  millions  of  men,  women,  and  children, 
whose  bodies  can  be  outraged  and  destroyed.  To 
speak  of  "  the  soul  of  America,"  as  Dr.  Stanton  Coit 
has  done  in  his  recent  book  of  that  title  —  a  "  soul " 
which  can  be  corrupted  by  a  depraved  spirit,  but  is  im- 
pregnable to  attacks  of  sword  and  spear  —  is  to  leave 
us  mystified  and  disturbed.  Such  language  at  once 
takes  us  into  a  realm  where  can  be  found,  perhaps,  the 
ideas  of  God,  immortality,  and  the  soul  of  man,  but  cer- 
tainly not  the  idea  of  country.  "  My  country  "  means 
a  great  stretch  of  territory  reaching  from  the  Atlantic 
to  the  Pacific,  and  from  the  Great  Lakes  to  the  Gulf 
of  Mexico.  It  means  an  aggregation  of  millions  of  peo- 
ple who  live  within  the  borders  of  this  territory.  It 
means  a  vast  machinery  of  government,  which  has  its 


336  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

main  plant  in  a  place  called  the  District  of  Columbia. 
It  means  a  group  of  cities  like  New  York,  Chicago,  St. 
Louis,  and  San  Francisco  —  a  group  of  states  like 
Massachusetts,  Ohio,  Louisiana,  and  California.  It 
means  stupendous  business  interests,  running  all  the 
way  from  the  mining  interests  of  the  West  to  the  manu- 
facturing interests  of  the  East.  It  means  a  hundred 
and  one  things,  all  of  which  can  be  seen,  touched, 
handled,  counted  —  and  lost.  And  this  being  our  con- 
ception of  country,  it  naturally  follows,  does  it  not, 
that  our  love  of  country  means  a  love  of  these  more 
or  less  material  things  and  a  determination  to  preserve 
them  and  glorify  them  at  any  price?  And  this  means, 
in  turn,  that  true  love  of  country  must  find  its  inevi- 
table expression  in  a  clamorous  demand  for  armaments, 
that  territory,  people,  government,  and  wealth  may  not 
fall  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy.  We  must  have  the 
weapons  of  the  flesh,  in  other  words,  to  protect  the 
things  of  the  flesh.  So  long  as  a  country  means  to  us 
so  much  soil  and  not  so  much  soul,  so  many  people  and 
not  so  many  ideas,  so  much  wealth  and  not  so  much 
holy  spirit,  then  indeed  must  we  rely  not  upon  God, 
but  upon  chariots  and  horsemen  —  and  this  for  the 
very  good  reason  pointed  out  by  Isaiah,  that  chariots 
are  "  many  "  and  horsemen  are  "  strong  " ! 

IV 

In  these  three  things  which  have  just  been  enumer- 
ated —  fear  of  the  calamitous  uncertainties  of  the 
future,  distrust  of  the  faith  and  honour  of  other  peo- 


THE  DUTY  OF  AMERICA  TO-DAY      337 

pies,  and  a  materialistic  conception  of  the  meaning  of 
America  and  its  place  in  the  family  of  nations  —  do 
we  find  what  I  have  called  the  state  of  mind  of  those  who 
believe  that  we  should  forthwith  proceed  to  arm  our- 
selves to  the  limit  of  endurance,  in  view  of  the  hazard 
of  war  now  forced  upon  our  attention  by  events  across 
the  seas.  Without  attempting  to  submit  this  state  of 
mind  to  any  critical  examination,  let  us  consider  at  once 
another  and  very  different  state  of  mind  in  which  certain 
people  in  this  country  are  at  this  moment  endeavouring 
to  meet  the  moral  crisis  of  the  hour.  This  state  of 
mind,  as  will  be  seen,  presents  factors  which  in  each 
and  every  case  are  diametrically  opposite  to  those  in- 
volved in  the  first  and  more  belligerent  state  of  mind. 

In  the  first  place,  we  find  that  this  second  group  of 
people  refuse  to  cherish  any  fears  as  to  the  dangers 
which  threaten  this  country  to-day  or  may  threaten  it 
in  the  future.  They  listen  to  the  hideous  stories  of 
captured  cities,  invaded  shores  and  slaughtered  citi- 
zens, with  indifference,  amusement,  or  out-and-out  con- 
tempt. Looking  at  the  matter  from  no  higher  stand- 
point than  that  of  the  military  problem  involved,  they 
assert  with  assurance  that  the  invasion  of  a  country, 
removed  from  any  hostile  base  of  operations  by  three 
thousand  and  more  miles  of  open  and  tempestuous  sea, 
is  as  impossible  a  feat  of  arms,  under  modern  condi- 
tions of  warfare,  as  would  be  the  conquest  of  a  coun- 
try stretching  three  thousand  miles  east  and  west 
and  fifteen  hundred  miles  north  and  south,  and  in- 
habited by  a  population  of  one  hundred  million.  These 


338  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

people  find  their  position  laid  down  with  perfect  pre- 
cision by  Prof.  Roland  G.  Usher,  in  his  much-read  book 
on  Pan-Germanism.  "  The  United  States,"  he  says,  in 
the  tenth  chapter,  "  is  beyond  question  invulnerable  to 
the  assaults  of  foreign  fleets  and  armies.  It  has  been 
pointed  out  that  the  Japanese  might  successfully  land 
an  army  upon  the  Pacific  coast,  or  the  Germans  land  an 
army  in  New  York  or  Boston,  practically  without  op- 
position. Sed  cui  bono?  The  strategical  and  geo- 
graphical conditions  of  the  country  on  either  coast  are 
such  that  a  foreign  army  would  occupy  the  ground  it 
stood  on,  and  no  more.  The  British  discovered  in  the 
Revolutionary  War  that  the  occupation  of  New  York, 
Boston,  and  Philadelphia  put  them  no  nearer  the  mili- 
tary possession  of  the  continent  than  they  were  before, 
and  that  marching  through  provinces  was  not  subduing 
them.  However  seriously  the  capture  of  New  York 
might  cripple  our  commercial  and  railway  interests,  the 
difficulty,  even  at  its  worst,  could  be  easily  overcome  by 
shifting  the  centre  of  business  for  the  time  being  to 
Chicago,  and  the  possession  of  New  York  would  cer- 
tainly not  permit  a  foreign  army  to  conquer  the  coun- 
try, even  if  it  were  possible  for  any  nation  to  maintain 
an  army  so  far  from  its  real  base  of  supplies  in  Europe. 
The  possibility  of  invasion  is  made  of  no  consequence 
by  the  simple  fact  that  no  foreign  nation  possesses  any 
inducement  for  attempting  so  eminently  hazardous  an 
enterprise."  Such  a  statement  of  the  actual  facts  of 
the  situation  is  like  a  breath  of  fresh  air,  blowing  into 
the  fever-laden  atmosphere  of  a  plague-house,  It  is 


THE  DUTY  OF  AMERICA  TO-DAY 

like  the  light  of  morning  breaking  upon  the  spectre- 
haunted  shadows  of  the  night.  There  is  no  more  reason, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  to  be  afraid  of  a  successful  or  even 
attempted  invasion  of  our  country  than  there  is  to  fear 
an  invasion  of  our  planet  from  flaming  Mars.  In  the 
one  case  as  in  the  other,  "  strategical  and  geographical 
conditions  "  are  our  all-sufficient  safeguard  against  at- 
tack. 

But  these  people,  of  whom  we  are  now  speaking,  do 
not  stop  here.  They  not  only  decline  to  give  way 
to  fears  regarding  the  threatened  invasion  of  America 
from  abroad,  but  they  decline  also  to  give  way  to  un- 
worthy suspicions  regarding  the  intentions  and  pur- 
poses of  other  nations.  They  recognise,  to  be  sure, 
that  the  history  of  international  relationships  is  a  con- 
tinued story  of  falsehoods,  deceits,  betrayals,  broken 
pledges,  and  violated  treaties.  They  agree  that  the 
diplomatic  record  of  this  present  conflict  is  one  long 
series  of  outrages,  from  Germany's  indefensible  in- 
vasion of  Belgium  in  violation  of  the  treaty  of  neutral- 
ity, to  England's  equally  indefensible  blockade  of  Ger- 
many's shores  in  violation  of  the  Declaration  of  Paris. 
Well  may  one  seem  to  be  justified  in  asking  to-day, 
What  nation  of  the  earth  can  be  trusted  to  act  toward 
other  nations  as  one  gentleman  would  act  toward  other 
gentlemen?  But  to  this  plea  the  answer  is  inevitable, 
that  the  dishonour  of  one  nation  is  only  the  fruit  which 
has  been  grown  by  a  universal  system  of  dishonour. 
Nations  are  treated  by  one  another,  in  other  words, 
just  exactly  as  they  deserve  to  be  treated.  They  reap 


340  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

only  what  they  have  long  since  sown.  With  what 
measure  they  have  meted,  it  is  measured  unto  them. 
Diplomacy  has  long  been  an  evil  plot,  but  it  is  a  plot 
in  which  all  the  nations  of  the  world  are  conspirators 
together.  What  is  needed  to  untangle  the  Gordian 
knot  of  treason,  and  thus  to  bring  honour  among  na- 
tions as  among  gentlemen,  is  only  the  honourable  ex- 
ample of  one  great  power.  And  it  is  just  this  honour- 
able example  that  America  has  given  to  the  world,  in 
the  few  isolated  cases  in  which  she  has  been  dragged 
into  the  game  of  international  diplomacy.  With  the 
result  that  never  yet  has  any  country  played  her  false ! 
In  other  words,  the  sure  way  of  maintaining  relations  of 
friendship  and  honour  with  other  nations,  is  not  to 
suspect  them  and  deceive  them,  to  try  to  outwit  them 
and  always  arm  to  the  teeth  against  them.  On  the 
contrary,  the  only  sure  way  is  to  trust  them,  play  them 
fair,  and  approach  them  with  hands  not  clenched  and 
armed  in  hate,  but  open  in  confidence  and  affection. 
"  The  only  way  to  have  a  friend,"  says  Emerson  in  his 
essay  on  Friendship,  "  is  to  be  one  " —  an  affirmation 
which  is  as  true  of  nations  as  it  is  of  individuals !  If 
we  distrust  the  nations,  they  will  justify  that  distrust 
by  intrigue  and  betrayal.  If  we  act  as  though  we  ex- 
pected them  to  attack  us  at  any  moment,  they  will 
justify  that  expectation  by  attacking  us,  lest  we  shall 
attack  them  first.  Russia  distrusted  Germany  in  July, 
1914,  and  mobilised  her  army  as  though  she  expected 
Germany  to  attack  her  —  and  Germany  did  attack  her ! 
On  the  other  hand,  Germany  distrusted  France  at  the 


THE  DUTY  OF  AMERICA  TO-DAY      341 

same  moment,  and  invaded  Belgium  as  though  she  ex- 
pected France  to  move  against  her  —  and  France  did 
move  against  her !  Suspicion  begets  suspicion,  attack 
precipitates  attack,  preparation  for  war  hastens  war. 
The  only  road  to  friendship  is  friendship.  The  only 
way  to  protect  one  nation  from  attack  is  to  have  con- 
fidence that  no  other  nation  will  assail  her  without 
cause.  The  only  way  to  secure  peace  is  to  walk  stead- 
fastly in  the  ways  of  peace.  Let  this  Republic,  said 
Carl  Schurz,  "  stand  as  the  gentleman  par  excellence 
among  nations  —  a  gentleman  scorning  the  role  of 
swashbuckler  whose  hip-pockets  bulge  with  loaded  six- 
shooters  and  who  flashes  big  diamonds  on  his  fingers  and 
shirt-front;  a  gentleman  modest  in  the  consciousness 
of  strength,  and  carrying  justice,  forbearance  and  con- 
ciliation on  his  tongue  and  benevolence  in  his  hand, 
rather  than  a  chip  on  his  shoulder  " —  and  lo  !  she  "  shall 
be  far  from  terror,  for  it  shall  not  come  nigh  (her)"! 

More  important,  however,  than  such  considerations 
as  these  is  the  conception  of  nationality  which  consti- 
tutes the  distinctive  state  of  mind  of  those  who  are 
opposed  to  all  agitation  for  armaments  at  this  or  any 
other  time.  To  such  persons,  a  nation  appears  not  as 
a  stretch  of  territory,  or  a  group  of  people,  or  a  mass 
of  wealth  —  not  at  all  as  a  "  great  power,"  in  the 
political  sense  of  that  term  —  but  simply  and  solely  as 
an  idea,  or  group  of  ideas.  Greece  means  not  a  pen- 
insula, but  an  idea  of  beauty  which  is  still  the  delight 
and  despair  of  men.  Rome  means  not  a  city  nor  an 
empire,  but  an  idea  of  law  which  has  slowly  moulded  our 


342  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

western  world  from  chaos  into  order.  England  means 
not  an  island,  but  an  idea  of  liberty  —  Germany  not  a 
political  group  of  Teutonic  states,  but  an  idea  of  cul- 
ture —  and  so  on  with  all  the  peoples  of  the  earth  that 
have  a  life  which  is  in  any  sense  distinctly  national. 

What  is  true  now,  of  such  countries  as  these,  is  true 
to  an  altogether  remarkable  degree  of  America.  Who 
thinks,  when  this  magic  word  is  mentioned,  of  a  par- 
ticular geographical  locality,  a  particular  breed  of 
men,  or  even  of  a  particular  kind  of  government? 
Immediately  are  we  transported  into  the  realm  of  ideas, 
and  there  brought  face  to  face  with  certain  great  con- 
ceptions of  the  spirit.  "  Four  score  and  seven  years 
ago,"  said  Lincoln  at  Gettysburg,  "  our  fathers  brought 
forth  upon  this  continent  a  new  nation  conceived  in  lib- 
erty and  dedicated  to  the  proposition  that  all  men  are 
created  equal."  In  such  a  declaration  as  this,  do  we 
find  a  definition  of  what  America  really  means.  Not  in 
the  things  of  the  flesh,  but  in  the  things  of  the  spirit  did 
we  have  our  origin ;  not  in  population  or  wealth,  but  in 
ideas  do  we  have  our  empire ;  not  in  the  conquest  of 
territory,  but  in  the  winning  of  souls  do  we  find  our 
destiny !  "  America,"  says  Dr.  David  Starr  Jordan, 
"  stands,  has  always  stood,  for  two  ideals  from  which 
she  cannot  escape,  for  they  are  fundamental  in  her 
origin  and  her  growth." 

First  of  all  is  the  idea  of  internationalism  or  brother- 
hood. America's  first  citizens  were  colonists  from 
England,  and  her  last  have  just  this  day  landed  at 
Ellis  Island  from  the  shores  of  Europe,  Asia,  and  Aus- 


THE  DUTY  OF  AMERICA  TO-DAY      343 

tralia.  Thirteen  millions  of  Americans  at  this  moment 
are  foreign  born  of  foreign  parents;  eighteen  millions 
more  are  native  born  of  foreign  parents ;  and  the  rest, 
who  boast  of  being  true  Americans,  must  all  trace  back 
their  parentage  of  a  few  generations  ago  to  some  coun- 
try far  across  the  seas.  In  the  larger  sense  of  the 
word,  that  is,  we  are  all  of  us  immigrants  from  some 
Fatherland  to  this,  which  has  been  well-called  "  the  be- 
loved Brotherland."  America  is  the  gathering  place 
of  all  the  tribes  of  earth  —  the  melting-pot,  as  Zang- 
will  has  put  it,  into  which  the  ingredients  of  every  race, 
religion  and  nationality  have  been  freely  poured.  And 
out  of  it  has  come  not  a  new  nation,  but  a  new  idea  — 
the  idea  of  brotherhood.  Here  all  national  antipathies, 
hereditary  hatreds,  race  prejudices  disappear,  as 
though  bred  out  of  the  stock  by  some  miracle  of  inter- 
crossing. Englishman  lives  side  by  side  with  German, 
Catholic  with  Protestant,  Gentile  with  Jew.  At  the 
very  moment  when  England,  Germany,  France,  Russia 
and  Austria  are  fighting  one  another  to  the  death,  their 
children  in  this  land  are  living,  working  and  playing 
together  without  enmity  or  friction.  The  average 
American  is  a  cosmopolitan  —  a  true  human  if  there 
ever  was  one.  "  This  is  the  land  where  all  hate  dies," 
said  a  certain  man  quoted  by  Dr.  Jordan  in  his  book 
on  America's  Conquest  of  Europe,  "  My  father  was  a 
German,  my  mother  French.  What  do  I  care  for  all 
that?  I  am  an  American.  The  old  hatreds  and  rival- 
ries are  nothing  to  me."  It  is  true,  of  course,  that 
America  has  not  always  been  true  to  this  idea  of 


344  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

brotherhood.  Every  one  of  her  foreign  wars  has  been 
an  infidelity,  and  all  preparation  for  such  wars  a  serious 
lapse.  But,  on  the  whole,  this  great  idea  has  never 
been  lost  sight  of  —  a  wonderful  reality  in  the  present 
and  a  prophecy  of  mighty  promise  for  the  future. 

If  the  first  ideal  of  American  life  is  international 
brotherhood,  the  second,  of  course,  is  none  other  than 
democracy  —  that  idea  which  finds  its  noblest  expres- 
sion in  Lincoln's  description  of  a  government  which  is 
"  of  the  people,  for  the  people,  and  by  the  people." 
Here  is  the  land  where  social  distinctions  of  every  kind 
are  definitely  eliminated,  where  nothing  counts  but 
simple  manhood  and  womanhood  —  the  strong  hand, 
the  valiant  heart,  the  seeing  soul.  Democracy  had  its 
beginning  here  on  the  frontier,  where  every  man  fought 
and  hewed  his  way  to  independence  by  the  sweat  of  his 
own  brow  and  the  cunning  of  his  own  mind.  "  These 
pioneers,"  said  John  Hay,  "  looked  on  no  one  as  their 
superiors,  and  on  none  as  their  inferiors.  They  knew 
no  want  they  could  not  satisfy  themselves."  And  it 
is  just  this  pioneer  idea  which  has  now  been  carried 
over  into  every  department  of  American  life.  Equal- 
ity of  economic  opportunity,  equality  before  the  law, 
equality  in  access  to  the  land,  to  education,  to  legis- 
lation —  here  is  the  idea  of  democracy,  now  working 
itself  out  into  the  conception  of  a  state  which  is  an  or- 
ganisation of  "  mutual  adjustment  for  collective  bene- 
fit." It  is  needless  to  point  out  how  often  America 
has  failed  to  fulfil  her  own  ideal  of  democracy.  It  is 
needless  to  specify  the  menaces  to  American  democ- 


THE  DUTY  OF  AMERICA  TO-DAY      345 

racy  which  are  involved  in  the  social  and  industrial 
developments  of  our  own  day  and  generation.  But 
even  in  the  darkest  days  of  slavery,  it  was  not  forgot- 
ten that  "  all  men  are  created  free  and  equal."  And 
now  when  social  snobbery,  industrial  tyranny  and  law- 
less wealth  are  apparently  all-powerful,  the  conscience 
of  the  nation  remains  as  sound  and  whole  as  ever.  The 
battle  for  democracy  has  in  many  ways  just  begun  — 
but  that  it  has  gone  far  enough  to  indicate  that  it  is  to 
be  fought  through  to  a  successful  finish,  however  long 
delayed,  is  apparent. 

In  these  two  great  ideas  of  brotherhood  and  democ- 
racy, is  the  essence  of  American  life.  This  is  what 
America  means  to-day,  as  Greece  yesterday  meant 
beauty  and  Rome  law.  And  just  here  in  this  spiritual 
idea  of  nationality,  do  we  find  the  supreme  and  unan- 
swerable vindication  of  the  men  who  would  save  Amer- 
ica at  this  time  from  militarism  and  the  huge  arma- 
ments which  militarism  would  build.  Of  course,  if  you 
have  no  higher  conception  of  America  than  a  stretch  of 
land,  comprising  forty-eight  states,  three-and-a-half 
million  square  miles  of  territory,  one  hundred  millions 
of  inhabitants,  and  no  higher  conception  of  patriotism 
than  a  frenzied  passion  to  make  the  inhabitants  of  this 
particular  political  division  of  the  earth's  surface  the 
dominant  people  of  the  world,  then  you  had  better 
build  as  many  dreadnaughts  and  train  as  many  sol- 
diers as  you  can,  for  these  weapons  can  alone  avail  you 
anything  in  this  realm  of  sheer  materialism.  But  if 
you  look  upon  America  as  a  great  ideal  of  the  spirit, 


316  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

independent  of  territory  and  population  and  wealth, 
then  all  such  things  as  armies  and  navies  become  mat- 
ters of  supreme  indifference.  For  the  spirit  is  impreg- 
nable to  all  the  attacks  that  the  hand  of  man  can  bring 
against  it.  What  if  the  soldiers  of  another  nation 
should  occupy  our  territory,  seize  our  ports,  capture 
our  cities,  occupy  our  strongholds,  levy  tribute  upon 
our  citizens?  What  if  Germany  came  here  to-day  as 
she  came  to  Belgium  yesterday !  Would  she  not  find  it 
as  impossible  to  conquer  "  the  soul  of  America "  as 
she  has  already  found  it  impossible  to  conquer  the  soul 
of  Belgium?  No  conqueror  that  ever  lived  could  de- 
stroy the  sense  of  brotherhood  that  is  at  the  heart  of 
our  American  life ;  no  sword  that  was  ever  forged  could 
smite  the  love  of  democracy  which  is  the  impulse  of  our 
civilisation.  A  free  people  would  still  be  free,  even 
though  in  chains  —  and  a  valiant  spirit  still  survive, 
even  the  hour  of  death.  Nay,  we  will  not  only  not  be 
conquered,  but  we  will  ourselves  be  conquerors  in  this 
higher  realm  of  the  spirit.  Let  our  enemies  come 
against  us  with  sword  and  shield  and  trumpet,  and  we 
will  meet  them  with  our  faith  in  brotherhood  and  democ- 
racy. And,  behold,  in  the  very  process  of  this  con- 
quest, they  will  themselves  be  conquered !  America 
will  conquer  the  thousands  who  come  in  arms  against 
her,  as  she  has  already  conquered  the  millions  who  have 
sought  her  shores  in  peace ! 

To  all  such  attacks  as  these,  the  soul  of  America  is 
impregnable.  But  there  is  another  kind  of  attack, 
which  may  well  be  feared  by  all  those  who  love  this 


THE  DUTY  OF  AMERICA  TO-DAY      347 

nation  not  for  what  she  has,  but  for  what  she  is.  I 
refer  to  the  attack  not  upon  her  soil  but  upon  her  soul 
—  an  attack  which  is  now  being  conducted  all  along 
the  line  by  those  who,  for  the  reasons  which  I  have  de- 
scribed, would  have  America  abandon  her  priceless 
ideals  of  brotherhood  and  democracy,  and  follow  the 
melancholy  example  of  the  great  empires  of  history. 
Why  worry  about  the  enemies  who  may  be  lying  in 
wait  against  our  country  on  some  far  horizon  of  the 
sea,  when  enemies  much  more  serious  are  lying  in  wait 
against  her  right  here  within  her  borders  ?  Why  worry 
about  the  armies  and  dreadnaughts  that  may  be  mar- 
shalled against  her  territory  in  Germany  or  Japan, 
when  lies  and  deceits  are  even  now  being  marshalled 
against  her  soul  in  Washington  and  on  Governor's 
Island?  Our  real  foes  are  of  our  own  household  — 
those  men  who,  from  motives  however  worthy,  would 
lead  America  out  of  the  trodden  paths  of  fraternity 
and  peace,  into  the  treacherous  ways  of  blood  and  iron. 
Once  let  the  policy  of  armaments  get  fastened  upon 
this  Republic,  and  our  mission  as  a  nation  is  at  an  end. 
No  longer  shall  we  be  a  people  of  ideas.  On  the  con- 
trary, we  shall  be  a  people  of  wealth,  power,  dominion, 
glory  —  a  people  who  measure  their  greatness  by  the 
territory  they  occupy  or  the  trade  they  own,  and  not 
by  the  ideals  of  the  spirit  which  they  serve.  In  becom- 
ing an  empire  we  shall  lose  that  brotherhood  which  has 
long  been  the  hope  of  a  disordered  world.  In  becoming 
a  "  great  power "  we  shall  sacrifice  that  democracy 
which  long  has  been  the  open  door  of  opportunity  to 


348  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

mankind.  In  gaining  the  whole  world,  we  shall  lose 
our  own  soul  —  die  as  Athens  died,  Rome  died,  Spain 
died !  Here  is  a  conquest  to  be  feared  in  very  earnest 
—  a  conquest  beside  which  the  bombardment  of  cities 
and  the  ravaging  of  territory  are  as  nothing.  If  I  had 
to  choose  between  having  America's  soil  over-run  from 
end  to  end  by  the  triumphant  legions  of  Von  Hinden- 
burg,  and  having  her  soil  untouched  by  the  foot  of  the 
invader,  but  her  soul  at  the  same  time  surrendered  to 
the  gospel  of  Treitschke  and  Bernhardi,  I  would  un- 
hesitatingly choose  the  former  fate.  For  nothing  is 
lost,  if  the  soul  is  safe ;  and  nothing  is  safe,  if  the  soul 
is  lost.  And  it  is  just  because  our  militarists,  on  the 
specious  plea  of  saving  our  shores  from  invasion,  are 
doing  nothing  more  nor  less  than  opening  the  soul  of 
America  to  a  peril  of  conquest  of  this  kind,  that,  in 
spite  of  their  sincerity,  they  are  to  be  so  greatly  feared. 


To  keep  America  faithful  to  her  ideals  —  to  help 
her  at  this  crisis  of  temptation,  to  preserve  her  soul 
inviolate  —  this  is  the  highest  duty  of  the  present  hour. 
And  this  duty  has  a  purpose  which  far  transcends  the 
selfish  interests  of  the  American  people  themselves. 
For  why  is  it  the  duty  of  America  to  preserve  her 
ideals,  if  not  that  she  may  transmit  these  ideals  to  the 
world?  "America,"  said  the  great  Belgian  statesman, 
Henri  LaFontaine,  in  an  address  at  Baltimore  in  1911, 
"has  to  liberate  Europe  from  its  burdens,  its  preju- 
dices, its  hatreds.  It  is  your  duty,  it  is  your  highest 


THE  DUTY  OF  AMERICA  TO-DAY      349 

duty,  to  reconcile  outside  your  borders  the  people  you 
have  reconciled  within  your  borders.  For  indeed  the 
American  people  ...  is  the  elect  people  which  can 
alone  transform  all  of  the  peoples  of  the  earth  into  a 
family  of  nations,  a  brotherhood  of  men." 

In  such  a  conception  as  this  do  we  see  what  is  the 
duty  of  America  —  to  "  conquer  Europe,"  as  President 
Jordan  has  put  it,  not  by  force  of  arms,  but  by  force 
of  ideas !  And  when  was  there  such  an  opportunity  to 
fulfil  this  duty  as  at  this  hour  of  world  agony?  When 
did  America's  ideas  of  brotherhood  and  democracy 
ever  appear  more  lovely  than  they  do  to-day?  And 
when  will  the  people  of  the  earth  be  more  ready  to  ac- 
cept them  than  at  the  moment  when  they  lay  down  their 
blood-stained  arms  and  seek  the  ways  of  peace?  It 
seems  as  though  this  war  were  a  kind  of  terrible  purg- 
ing of  the  ancient  world,  in  preparation  for  the  com- 
ing of  the  modern  world.  And  yet  there  are  those  who 
would  fling  away  this  God-given  opportunity  for  fear 
that  some  material  disaster  may  come  upon  this  na- 
tion !  Not  thus,  we  may  be  sure,  will  America  be  de- 
stroyed. Let  her  put  her  trust  not  in  arms,  but  in  the 
ideals  which  are  the  peculiar  possession  of  her  people, 
and  she  will  live  forever,  like  "  the  tree  of  life  "  whose 
"  leaves  are  for  the  healing  of  the  nations."  But  let 
her  abandon  those  ideals,  and  seek  security  not  in  love 
but  in  power,  and  verily  her  days,  like  the  days  of 
every  empire,  will  be  numbered. 

"How  long,  Good  Angel,  O  how  long?"  asks  the 
poet,  Sidney  Lanier,  in  his  •Centennial  Cantata.  How 


350 


NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 


long    shall    beloved    America    endure?     List    how    the 
Angel  speaks  ! 


Long  as  thine  Art  shall  love  true  love, 
Long  as  thy  Science  truth  shall  know, 
Long  as  thine  Eagle  harms  no  Dove, 
Long  as  thy  Law  by  law  shall  grow, 
Long  as  thy  God  is  God  above, 
Thy  brother  every  man  below, 
So  long,  dear  land  of  all  my  love, 
Thy  name  shall  shine,  thy  fame  shall 


APPENDIX 


THE  one  supreme  text  book  of  non-resistance  is  the 
Bible.  In  scattered  narratives  in  Genesis,  Samuel, 
Kings,  in  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and 
Micah,  in  the  four  Gospels,  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and 
certain  of  the  Catholic  Epistles,  are  to  be  found  a  rich 
treasury  of  non-resistance  ideas  and  ideals. 

Other  so-called  sacred  literatures  are  likewise  to  be 
noted,  especially  those  of  Tao-ism  and  Buddhism.  A 
useful  collection  of  important  passages  can  be  found  in 
Moncure  D.  Conway's  Sacred  Anthology. 

To  these  ancient  religious  writings  must  be  added 
the  literature  associated  with  Bahaism.  Few  nobler 
utterances  on  peace  have  been  produced  in  any  age 
than  those  which  may  be  found  in  the  Tablets  of  Baha 
o'llah  and  Abdul  Baha. 


Certain  of  the  more  important  books  and  essays 
bearing  on  the  subject  of  non-resistance,  or  the  more 
radical  ideas  of  peace,  are  as  follows : 

Angell,  Norman  —  America  and  the  New  World  State. 
Angell,  Norman  —  Arms  and  Industry. 

Angell,  Norman  —  The  Great  Illusion. 

351 


352  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

Anonymous  —  How  Diplomats  Make  War. 

Babson,  R.  W. —  The  Future  of  World  Peace. 

Ballou,  Adin  —  Christian  Non-Resistance. 

Brailsford,  H.  N. —  The  War  of  Steel  and  Gold. 

Burritt,  Elihu  —  Thoughts  and  Things  at  Home  and 
Abroad. 

Buxton,  C.  R.,  et  al. —  Towards  a,  Lasting  Settlement. 

Child,  Lydia  Maria  —  Letters. 

Conway,  Moncure  D. —  Essays  and  Addresses. 

Crane,  Frank  —  War  and  World  Government. 

Crile,  George  W. —  A  Mechanistic  View  of  War  and 
Peace. 

Crosby,  Ernest  —  Garrison  the  Non-Resistant. 

Darrow,  Clarence  —  Non-Resistance. 

Emerson,  Ralph  Waldo  —  Lecture  on  War. 

Erasmus  —  The  Plea  of  Reason,  Religion,  and  Human- 
ity Against  War. 

Fiske,  John  —  The  Destiny  of  Man. 

Fox,  George  —  Journals. 

Garrison,  William  Lloyd  —  Life,  by  his  children. 

Gulick,  S.  L. —  The  Fight  for  Peace. 

Hobson,  J.  A. —  Towards  International  Government. 

Howe,  Frederic  C. —  Why  War? 

Hull,  William  I. —  Preparedness. 

Hunter,  Robert  —  Violence  and  the  Labour  Movement. 

James,  William  —  The  Moral  Equivalent  of  War. 

Jefferson,  Charles  E. —  Christianity  and  International 
Peace. 

Jordan,  David  Starr  —  America's  Conquest  of  Europe. 

Jordan,  David  Starr  —  The  Human  Harvest. 


APPENDIX  853 

Jordan,  David  Starr  —  War's  Aftermath. 

Kant,  Immanuel  —  Eternal  Peace. 

Lynch,  Frederick  —  The  Last  War. 

Lynch,  Frederick  —  The  Peace  Problem. 

Lynch,  Frederick —  Through  Europe  on  the  Eve  of 

War. 

M acKaye,  Percy  —  A  Substitute  for  War. 
Marshall,  H.  R. —  War  and  the  Ideal  of  Peace. 
Mitchell,  P.  C. —  Evolution  and  the  War. 
Nasmyth,  G.  W. —  Social  Progress  and  the  Darwinian 

Theory. 

Perris,  G.  W. —  War  and  Peace. 
Holland,  Remain  —  Above  the  Battle. 
Ruskin,  John  —  War. 

Russell,  Bertrand  —  Justice  in  War  Time. 
Spencer,  Herbert  —  Principles  of  Sociology. 
Sumner,  Charles  —  The  True  Grandeur  of  Nations. 
Tolstoi,  Leo  —  Bethink  Yourselves! 
Tolstoi,  Leo  —  Confessions. 
Tolstoi,  Leo  —  My  Religion. 
Walling,  William  E. —  Socialists  and  the  War. 
Wilson,  William  E. —  Christ  and  War. 

in 

In  recent  years  a  remarkable  series  of  imaginative 
works  on  the  subject  of  non-resistance  have  been  pro- 
duced. Some  of  these  are  as  follows: 

Brownell,  Atherton  —  The  Unseen  Empire. 


354  NEW  WARS  FOR  OLD 

Copley,     Frank  —  The     Impeachment     of     President 

Israels. 

Crosby,  Ernest  —  Swords  and  Ploughshares. 
Dix,  Beulah  Marie  —  Moloch. 
Galsworthy,  John  —  The  Mob. 
Kennedy,  Charles  Rann  —  The  Terrible  Meek. 
Newton,  W.  D. —  War. 

Noyes,  Alfred  —  A  Belgian  Christmas  Eve. 
Noyes,  Alfred  —  Rada     (the     above     in    its     original 

form). 

Noyes,  Alfred  —  The  Wine-Press. 
Trask,  Katrina  —  In  the  Vanguard. 
Von  Ende,  Amelia  —  The  Wages  of  War. 
Wentworth,  Marion  C. —  War  Brides. 
Zangwill,  Israel  —  The  War  God. 


INDEX 


Abdul    Baha,   247,   248,   351 

Acts,  quoted,  177 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  102,  253; 
letter  to  Pres.  Monroe  on 
preparedness,  102 

Adams,  Samuel,   133 

Adler,   Felix,   316;   quoted,  315 

Agamemnon,   115 

Ahaz,  107,  156,  214 

Albert,  King,  134 

Alexander  VI,  Pope,  61,  214 

Alexander  the  Great,  20,  107 

Alexandria,  library  of,  burned, 
280 

Alfred,  King,  190 

Alliances,  relation  to  problem 
of  security,  14 

Allies,  the,  289 

America  (United  States),  49, 
216,  219,  246,  254,  265,  287, 
290,  291,  292,  329,  331,  334; 
unprotected  boundary  line 
between,  and  Canada,  253; 
true  defence  of,  290,  346; 
and  patriotism,  292;  duty 
and  opportunity  of,  to-day, 
327-350;  crisis  facing,  329; 
lessons  taught  to,  by  Great 
War,  331;  Belgium  con- 
trasted with,  332;  and  pre- 
paredness, 332-342;  im- 
pregnable to  attack,  338; 
two  ideals  of,  internation- 
alism, 342,  and  democracy, 
344;  real  foes  of,  inside  in- 
stead of  outside,  317;  des- 
tiny of,  348;  conquest  of 
Europe  by,  349 ;  "  How 
long,  Good  Angel,  O,  how 
long,"  350 


Anarchy,  the  logic  of  force,  54 

Ancien  Reylme,  274 

Angell,  Norman,  11;  quoted, 
105. 

Antediluvian  monsters,  extinc- 
tion of,  75 

Anthony,  Susan  B.,  215 

Anti-slavery  struggle,  133,  203, 
288 

Antoninus  Pius,  57 

Antwerp,   104 

Armenians,  persecutions  of, 
245 

Aristotle,  301,  310,  319;  de- 
fence of  war  by,  301-303 

Arnold,  Sir  Edwin,  quoted, 
153  (note) 

Arnold,  Matthew,  quoted,  146 

Asquith,  Mr.,  267 

Assyria,  99,  103;  war  against 
Ahaz,  158 

Athenian  democracy,  death  of, 
through  war,  315 

Athens,  109,  255,  281;  after 
Persian  Wars,  109 

Aurelius,  Marcus,  10,  60,  62, 
273;  character  of,  56;  work 
of,  as  emperor,  56;  wars 
of,  57;  persecution  of 
Christians  by,  58;  explana- 
tion of,  59;  illustration  of 
dangers  involved  in  use  of 
force,  61 

Australia,  91,  287,  343;  part  of, 
in  Great  War,  91 

Austria,  63,  100,  267,  286,  329 


B 


Bab,  the,  247 
Babylonia,    103 
Bach,  108 


355 


356 


INDEX 


Baha  o'llah,  247,  248,  351; 
quoted  on  patriotism,  292 

Bahaism,  244,  351 

Bahaists,  244,  252;  persecutions 
of,  in  Turkey,  244-248; 
compared  with  early  Chris- 
tians, 247 

Bakounin,  95,  205 

Balkans,  the,  15 

Ballou,  Adin,  quoted,   169,   182 

Barclay,   Robert,   Quaker,   238 

Bastile,  the,   130 

Baur,  F.  C.,  108 

Bebel,  95,  249 

Beethoven,   108 

Belgium,  15,  23,  63,  102,  265, 
285,  286,  288,  331,  333,  339, 
341,  346;  not  unprepared, 
104;  devastation  of,  133, 
279;  contrasted  with  Amer- 
ica, 332 

Berlioz,  290 

Bernhardi,  General,  22,  75,  77, 
81,  82,  106,  155,  164,  265, 
306,  309,  320,  348;  quoted, 

9,  74 

Bethmann-Hollweg,     von,     134 
Bible,  the,  187,   188;  quoted,  9, 

10,  28,   30,   32,   36,   40,   41, 
116,  118,  121,  135,  138,  139, 
159,  163,  164,  166,  178,  179, 
212,  219,  226,  259,  329 

Bismarck,  108;  struggle  against 
socialism,  249,  250,  252, 
254 

Bienvenu,  Bishop  (see  Les 
Miserables) 

Black  Death,  the,  274 

Black  Hundreds,  89 

Bloch,  de,  11 

Bomba  atrocities,  93 

Bonaparte,  Napoleon,  4,  20, 
103,  131,  266;  cost  of,  to 
France,  281;  conquest  of 
Germany  by,  289 

Boston,  338* 

Brennus,  the  Gaul,  Rome  cap- 
tured by,  125,  127 


Bright,  John,  quoted,  68 

Brown,  John,  202;  Emerson's 
attitude  toward,  202;  Gar- 
rison's attitude  toward, 
204;  Whittier's  attitude 
toward,  204 

Browning,   Robert,  quoted,   200 

Brook  Farm,  201 

Buddha,  10,  155;  quoted,  142, 
151,  154;  a  non-resistant, 
150-155;  life  of,  150; 
teachings  of,  151;  com- 
pared with  Lao-tse  and 
Jesus,  153;  anticipation  of 
evolution,  154;  faith  of, 
214 

Buddhism,  173,  351;  a  religion 
of  pity,  151;  no  applica- 
tion to  social  problems, 
153 

Buddhists,   173 

Bulwer-Lytton,    quoted,    134 

Bunker  Hill,  code  of,  204 

Byron,  Lord,  207 


Caiaphas,  61,  215 

California,  336 

Calvary,  168,  207 

Calvin,  John,  11;  in  the  begin- 
ning a  non-resistant,  195; 
burning  of  Servetus  by, 
196 

Canada,  287;  part  of,  in  the 
Great  War,  91,  254,  255; 
disarmament  with  Amer- 
ica, 102 ;  unprotected 
boundary  line  of,  253 

Capital  punishment,  failure  of, 
88;  denounced  by  Lao-tse, 
149 

Carlyle,  Thomas,  quoted  on 
war,  278 

Carthage,  contribution  to  civ- 
ilisation by,  107 

Cathari,  Medieval  non-resist- 
ant sect,  188 


INDEX 


357 


Catholics,  Irish,  244 

Catiline,  130;  conspiracy 
against  Rome,  129 

Cato,  107 

Cavaliers,  English,  132,  197, 
272 

Celsus,  214 

Chaldea,  106,  255 

Charlemagne,  103;  conquest  of 
Saxony  by,  185 

Charles  I,  197 

Charles  V,  103,  195,  214 

Charles  XII,  103 

Chartist  riots,  93,  95 

Chicago,  336,  338;  fire,  274 

Child,  Lydia  Maria,  a  non-re- 
sistant, 204 

Children,  failure  of  force  in 
care  and  training  of,  85 

China,  example  of  non-resist- 
ance in  national  life,  255- 
258 

Chinese,  contrasted  with  Quak- 
ers, 257,  258 

Chivalry,  318 

Christianity,  8,  12,  24,  173,  194, 
206;  under  Marcus  Aure- 
lius,  58-60;  failure  of,  to 
stop  the  Great  War,  128; 
non-resistant,  177;  as  ex- 
emplified by  early  Chris- 
tians, 179;  its  corruption 
by  the  Empire,  184;  disap- 
pearance of  non-resistance 
from,  184;  heretical  sects 
of,  186-191;  saved  by  Mar- 
tel,  274 

Christians,  173,  206;  early,  59, 
179,  259;  persecutions  of, 
by  Aurelius,  59-61,  62, 
273;  by  Nero,  271;  success 
against  Rome,  132;  non- 
resistants,  179-183;  Baha- 
ists  compared  with,  247 

Church  fathers,  10;  quoted  on 
non-resistance,  180-183 

Cicero,  130;  opposition  to  Cati- 
line, 129 


Civil  War  (see  War) 

Civilisation,  4,  109,  257;  its 
possible  ruin  by  the  Great 
War,  4;  recent  progress 
toward,  6;  failure  of,  36; 
war  fatal  to,  107,  281; 
flourishes  not  because,  but 
in  spite,  of  war,  109; 
Chinese,  256;  Ruskin's  ar- 
gument of  war's  contribu- 
tion to,  303 

Clifford,  Dr.  John,  126 

Coit,  Dr.  Stanton,  335 

Coligny,  Admiral,  290 

Colonial  government,  failure  of 
force  in,  90 

Colorado,  prison  system  in,  89, 
219 

Commune,  93 

Concord  School  of  Philosophy, 
201 

Confucius,  10,  144;  meeting 
with  Lao-tse,  144;  com- 
pared with  Lao-tse,  145, 
148,  150 

Connecticut,  colony  of,  239 

Constitution,  the  American, 
290 

Conway,  Moncure  D.,  Sacred 
Anthology  by,  351 

Cramb,  Professor  J.  A.,  22, 
106,  164,  310,  314,  319,  320, 
322,  323;  defence  of  war, 
306-309 

Cromwell,  Oliver,  132,  197,  271, 
272 

Crown  Prince,  the  German, 
267 

Crusades,  the,  185,  274 

D 

D'Alembert,    131 

Damien,  Father,  319 

Danton,   131 

Darwin,  Charles,  80,  154,  290 

David.  King,  107,  204 

Debs,  Eugene,  86 


358 


INDEX 


Declaration     of     Independence, 

the  American,  290;  quoted, 

46,  47 

Declaration  of  Paris,  the,  339 
Defence       (see      also      Force), 

equivalent     to     aggression, 

62 
Democracy,  344;   and   America, 

345 

Demosthenes,  306 
Deuteronomy,  quoted,  121 
Diderot,  131 
Diet  of  Worms,  195 
Dix,  Dorothea,  201 
Domestic    relations,    failure    of 

force  in,  84 
Drake,  Prof.  Durant,  quoted  on 

war,  287 
Drummond,   Henry,  80;  quoted 

on  evolution,  25,  82 
Dymond,  Jonathan,  237 

E 

Eckhart,  Meister,  108 

Egypt,  103,  106,  255,  304;  part 
of,  in  Great  War,  91 

Ellis   Island,  342 

Emerson,  Ralph  Waldo, 
quoted,  34,  136,  216,  221, 
227,  340;  teachings  on  non- 
resistance,  201;  change  in 
thought,  202;  on  John 
Brown,  202 

Engels,  95 

England,  3,  15,  90,  100,  105, 
139,  253,  267,  272,  279,  283, 
286,  290,  291,  292,  309,  329, 
339,  342;  government  of 
colonies  by,  90;  in  days  of 
Elizabeth,  109;  Civil  Wars 
in,  271 ;  symbol  of  libertv, 
342 

Epistles,  of  Paul,  351;  Catho- 
lic, 351 

Erasmus,  132,  197;  a  non-re- 
sistant, 196 

Erskine,  Prof.  John,  quoted, 
268 


Evolution  (see  also  Struggle 
for  Survival,  Struggle  for 
Life  of  Others,  Mutual 
Aid,  etc.),  force  as  factor 
in,  19,  74,  75;  love  as  fac- 
tor in,  26,  76,  79,  80;  man 
in,  81 ;  part  of  brain  devel- 
opment in,  109;  anticipa- 
tion of,  by  Buddha,  154 

Exodus,  quoted,  121 


Fell,  Leonard,  Quaker,  238 

Fichte,  108,  289 

"Fifty-four  forty  or  fight," 
254 

Fiske,  John,  80;  quoted,  2,  27; 
on  Aristotle,  301 

Force  (see  also  War,  Non-Re- 
sistance,  etc.),  doctrine  of, 
19;  as  related  to  struggle 
for  survival,  19,  20;  part 
in  evolution,  19,  21;  al- 
leged moral  justification 
of,  20;  as  a  new  code  of 
morals,  24;  as  related  to 
problem  of  international 
peace,  22,  29,  98;  to  prob- 
lem of  security,  23,  30, 
102;  to  problem  of  ideals, 
24,  106;  appeal  to,  the 
cause  of  fear  and  insecur- 
ity, 31 ;  challenge  of  ideal- 
ism to,  34;  logic  of,  39-65, 
64;  presumption  against, 
35,  39;  failure  of  as  a 
working  principle,  35,  110, 
113,  133,  222,  224,  240,  242, 
244;  burden  of  proof  on 
advocates  of,  41;  a  parable 
of,  43;  straight  road  to  an- 
archy, 44,  54;  conditions 
alleged  to  justify  use  of, 
45,  55,  70;  use  of  against 
oppression,  45;  as  last  re- 
sort only,  46;  dangers  of, 
52,  54;  use  of  in  defence  of 


INDEX 


359 


property  or  life,  55,  58, 
223-225;  dangers  of,  60, 
61,  71;  defensive  use  of 
equivalent  to  aggression, 
62;  dangers  of  described 
as  argument  for  regulation 
only,  69;  analogy  to  fire, 
69,  explosives,  70,  poisons, 
70;  fallacies  of,  72-110, 
224;  evolutionary  argu- 
ment against  efficacy  of, 
73;  its  part  in  domestic 
relations,  84;  in  treatment 
of  children,  85,  in  indus- 
trial relations,  86,  in  prison 
administration,  87,  in  po- 
litical relations,  89,  in 
colonial  government,  91,  in 
struggles  for  liberty,  92; 
Shelley  on,  93;  repudia- 
tion of,  by  socialists,  95, 
205;  described  and  de- 
nounced by  Buddha  as 
root  of  all  evil,  152;  re- 
pudiation of,  by  Isaiah,  156- 
160,  by  Jesus,  168,  171,  by 
Paul,  179,  by  Tertullian, 
181,  by  Lactantius,  181, 
by  Cathari,  188,  by  Wal- 
denses,  189,  by  Wycliffe 
and  the  Lollards,  190,  by 
Moravians,  191,  by  St. 
Francis  and  his  Order, 
191,  by  Erasmus,  196,  by 
Quakers,  197,  by  Tran- 
scendentalists  (Emerson, 
Garrison,  Whittier,  etc.), 
201 ;  only  weapon  for  cow- 
ards or  those  who  hate 
their  fellows,  227;  neces- 
sary uses  of,  262 

Fox,  George,  11,  198;  quoted, 
198;  fidelity  to  non-re- 
sistance, 197 

France,  3,  63,  93,  102,  105,  139, 
254,  272,  286,  290,  313,  315, 
329,  331,  333,  340,  341 ;  and 
the  Revolution,  130 


Francis,  St.,  10,  206;  a  non-re- 
sistant, 191-193;  life  of, 
191;  Order  of,  192-193 

Franciscans,  194;  relation  to 
non-resistance,  191 

Frederick  the  Great,  103,  108; 
quoted,  12 

French  Revolution,  the,  92,  98, 
130 

Friends  (see  Quakers) 


Galahad,  Sir,  317 

Galicia,  63,  279 

Garrison,  William  Lloyd, 
quoted,  112;  battle  of, 
against  slavery,  133; 
mobbed,  137;  a  non-re- 
sistant, 203-204;  on  John 
Brown,  204;  how  practi- 
cal was  he?  215 

Gaspte,    schooner,    burned,    49 

Genesis,  351 

George  III,  48,  61 

George  V,  91 

Germany,  3,  63,  100,  139,  254, 
255,  267,  279,  285,  288,  290, 
291,  292,  309,  313,  315,  329, 
340,  346,  347;  culture  of, 
before  1870,  108;  after 
1870,  108;  influence  of 
militarism  upon,  108;  over- 
run by  Napoleon,  289;  in- 
vasion of  Belgium  by,  339; 
symbol  of  learning,  342 

Gethsemane,  Garden  of,  127, 
171 

Gettysburg,  Lincoln's  Address 
at,  342 

Gideon,  204 

Gilder,  Richard  Watson, 
quoted,  296 

Gneisenau,   108 

Goethe,  289 

Golden  Rule,  the,  261 

Good  Will  (see  Love,  Non-Re- 
sistance,  etc.) 


360 


INDEX 


Gospels,  the,  351 

Government,    failure    of    force 

in,  89 

Governor's   Island,  347 
Greece,    extinction    of    ancient, 

281;    conquered    by    Rome, 

289;  symbol  of  beauty,  341, 

345 


H 


Hague  Conferences,  7,  12 

Hamlet,   221 

Harper's  Ferry,  202 

Hawaii,  334 

Hay,  John,  quoted,  344 

Haydn,  108 

Haywood,  William,  205 

Heine,  108 

Henry,  £mile,  terrorist,  38 

Henry,  Patrick,  52,  53,  133; 
quoted  on  violence,  48,  51 

Heracleitus,  compared  with 
Lao-tse,  144 

Herder,  108 

Hezekiah,  107,  159,  160,  214 

Higginson,  T.  W.,  204 

Hindenberg,  von,  20,  348 

Hohenzollerns,  249 

Holbach,  131 

Holley,  Horace,  quoted  on 
Bahaists,  248  (note) 

Homestead   riots,  93 

Hopedale,  201 

Horace,  Odes   of,   289 

Howe,  Julia  Ward,  quoted,  21 

Howe,    Dr.    Samuel   G.,    201 

Hugo,  Victor,   118,   136,  290 

Human  Sacrifice,  compared 
with  war,  273,  283 

Hunter,  Robert,  133  (note), 
quoted  on  pacifism  in  the 
labor  movement,  95,  96; 
on  German  socialists,  250 

Hutchinson,  Governor,  resi- 
dence destroyed,  49 

Huxley,  Thomas,  quoted,  26 


Idealism,  problem  of,  16;  and 
the  doctrine  of  force,  24, 
106;  and  the  doctrine  of 
non-resistance,  32,  34,  211- 
214;  as  practised,  214; 
war  defended  on  basis  of, 
306;  as  illustrated  by  Capt. 
Scott,  307;  American,  334, 
341,  345 

India,  part  of,  in  Great  War, 
91 

Indians,  of  Utah,  229,  peace- 
ful relations  of,  with 
Quakers  in  Pennsylvania, 
239;  savagery  of,  in  other 
colonies,  239 

International  Court  of  Arbi- 
tration, 297 

Internationalism,  292,  342;  and 
patriotism,  291;  and  Amer- 
ica, 345 

Ireland,    rebellion   in,   243 

Isaiah,  9,  10,  30,  107,  212,  336; 
quoted,  110,  159;  a  non- 
resistant,  155-161;  as  a 
statesman,  155;  advice  to 
Ahaz,  157;  to  Hezekiah, 
159;  Renan's  characteriza- 
tion of,  161;  faith  of,  214 

Isaiah,   Deutero-,  107 

Israel,    captivity    of,    107 

Italy,  93,  96,  291,  329 

I.  W.  W.,  205 


James,  William,  quoted  on  war, 
320;  on  substitutes  for 
war,  324 

Janissaries,    89 

Japan,  347 

Jaures,  95 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  133 

Jeremiah,   107 

Jerusalem,  fall  of,  107;  saved 
from  Sennacherib,  160 


INDEX 


361 


Jesus,  27,  61,  114,  117,  119, 
132,  133,  137,  154,  135, 
179,  189,  204,  206,  207,  212, 
215,  236;  quoted,  10,  28,  32, 
105,  135,  163,  164,  166,  259, 
276;  on  "resist  not  evil," 
115-123;  as  a  passive  re- 
sistant, 127,  128;  Lao-tse 
compared  with,  148;  Bud- 
dha compared  with,  153; 
a  non-resistant,  161-172;  on 
"  wars  and  rumors  of 
wars,"  163;  on  "not  peace 
but  a  sword,"  164;  on  "he 
that  hath  no  sword,  let 
him  .  .  .  buy  one,"  167; 
cleansing  the  Temple,  169; 
the  spirit  of  his  life,  170; 
supreme  sacrifice  of,  171; 
influence  of,  172,  179; 
faith  of,  214;  and  woman 
taken  in  adultery,  237 

Jews,  173,  206;  a  non-militaris- 
tic people,  107;  survival  of, 
107;  two  episodes  in  his- 
tory of,  156-160 

John,   St.,   204;   quoted,    138 

Jones,  "  Golden  Rule,"  quoted, 
261 

Jordan,  David  Starr,  quoted, 
266,  343,  349;  on  ideals  of 
America,  342 

Joshua,  204 

Judaism,   173 

Justin  Martyr,  59;  quoted  on 
non-resistance,  180;  faith 
of,  214 

Justinian,  Laws  of,  289 


K 


Kansas-Nebraska  struggle,  202; 

Emerson's  attitude  toward, 

202 
Kant,  Immanuel,  108,  289,  298, 

quoted,  264 
Kennedy,  Charles  Rann,  quoted, 

133 


Kimball,  J.   C.,  quoted,   75 

Kings,  I  and  II,  351 

Kipling,    Rudyard,   quoted,   26, 

105,  267 
Kropotkin,  Prince,  80 


Labor,  international  organiza- 
tion of,  12;  and  capital, 
86;  failure  of  force  in  dis- 
putes of,  86,  revolts  of 
against  oppression,  93 

Lactantius,  quoted  on  non-re- 
sistance, 181 

La  Fontaine,  Henri,  quoted  on 
America's  destiny,  348 

Lamb,  Charles,  321 

Lanier,    Sydney,   quoted,   349 

Lao-tse,  10,  154,  155;  quoted, 
148;  a  non-resistant,  143- 
150;  life  of,  144;  meeting 
of,  with  Confucius,  144; 
teachings  of,  145,  147; 
compared  with  Confucius, 
145,  148,  150,  with  Jesus, 
148;  Buddha  compared 
with,  153 

Last  Supper,  the,  166 

Lawson,  John,  93 

Lecky,  W.  E.  H.,  quoted  on 
Marcus  Aurelius,  56,  59 

Lee,  Robert  E.,  287 

Leibnitz,   108 

Les  Miserables,  118,  136 

Leviticus,  quoted,   121 

Liberator,  the,  133,  204 

Liebknecht,  95,  249;  quoted  on 
German  socialism,  252 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  215,  287, 
290,  344;  quoted  276,  342 

Lindsey,   Judge   Ben,   219 

Livingstone,   David,  228 

Livy,  10;  quoted,  45 

Lollards,  the,  Medieval  non-re- 
sistants, 190,  194 

London,  the  Great  Fire  of,  274 

Lorenzo,  of  Florence,  214 


362 


INDEX 


Louisiana,  336 

Louvain,  University  of,  burned, 
280 

Lowell,  James  Russell,  quoted, 
133  (note),  229,  299 

Love  (see  also  Non-Resist- 
ance), law  of,  27;  as  crown 
of  non-resistance,  27-28, 
135;  efficaciousness  of,  136- 
138;  taught  by  Lao-tse, 
149,  by  Buddha,  153,  by 
Jesus,  170,  by  St.  Francis, 
192;  stronger  than  physical 
force,  219;  "never  faileth," 
226 

Ludlow,  massacre  at,  87,  93 

Lusitania,   sinking  of,   265,   268 

Luther,  Martin,  11,  132,  196, 
289;  in  the  beginning  a 
non-resistant,  194;  and  the 
Peasants'  War,  195;  faith 
of,  214 

Lynch,  Dr.  Frederick,  314; 
quoted,  7,  313 

M 

Maccabees,  the,   107 

Macedonia,  107,  255;  contribu- 
tion to  history,  107 

McNamaras,  the  54,  87 

Maeterlinck,   Maurice,   134 

Mahan,   Admiral,   65 

Man,  part  of,  in  evolution,  81; 
combativeness  of,  82 

Manchuria,   213,   216 

Mann,  Horace,  201 

Mann,  Tom,  86 

Marat,    131 

Marathon,  battle  of,  273 

Mark,   Gospel    of,    quoted,    163 

Marston    Moor,    battle    of,    133 

Martel,  Charles,  273 

Martineau,  James,  301 

Martyr  nation,  the,  32 

Marx,  Karl,  95,  96 

Maryland,  colony,  239 

Masefield,  John,  267 


of  Anarchy,  Shelley's, 
quoted,  93 

Massachusetts,  336;  colony  of, 
239 

Matthew,  Gospel  of,  116; 
quoted,  164 

Maximilian,  an  early  Christian 
non-resistant,  182 

Mercier,  Cardinal,   134 

Mexico,  40,  227 

Middle  Ages,  the,  3,  10,  99, 
186,  190,  304,  318 

Might  makes  right,  69 

Militants,  Suffrage,  defended 
as  victims  of  oppression, 
50;  driven  to  violence  as 
last  resort,  51 

Militarism  (see  also  Force, 
Preparedness,  etc.),  fall  of 
nations  through,  103;  guar- 
antee of  insecurity  and 
death,  104;  fatal  influence 
of,  on  ancient  civilizations, 
106;  part  of,  in  history  of 
Sparta,  Macedonia,  Carth- 
age and  Rome,  107;  and 
modern  Germany,  108; 
passing  of,  in  favor  of  in- 
dustrialism, 110;  Prussian, 
139;  German,  272;  depicted 
as  coefficient  of  virtue, 
310-311 

Mill,  John  Stuart,  quoted  on 
Marcus  Aurelius,  58 

Milton,  John,  132 

Mobilisation,  described  by  Dr. 
Lynch,  313 

Moliere,  290 

Moltke,  von,   108 

Monroe,  James,   102,  253 

Montenegro,  63 

Moravians,  194;  non-resistants, 
191 

More,  Thomas,  132;  attack  of, 
on  Luther,  194 

Morlev,  John,  quoted,  34;  on 
Voltaire,  131 

Mosaic  Law,  the,  115,  121,   189 


INDEX 


863 


Moses,  204 
Mozart,  108 
Munition-makers,  299 
Mutual    aid,   as    factor  in  evo- 
lution, 26,   79 


N 

Napoleon    (see    Bonaparte) 

Naseby,  battle  of,  133 

Nations,  rise  and  fall  of,  103, 
106 

Negro  problem  in  the  South, 
54 

Nero,  271 

Netherlands,  the,  wars  of,  with 
Spain,  274 

New  England,  242 

New  York,  333,  336,  338 

New  Zealand,  part  of,  in 
Great  War,  91 

Niebuhr,   108 

Nietzsche,  quoted,  24 

Nineveh,  135 

Non-Conformity,  a  form  of 
non-resistance,  124;  battle 
of  against  English  Educa- 
tion Bill,  126 

Non-Resistance  (see  also  Love, 
Force,  etc.),  doctrine  of, 
25,  114;  a  summons  to  bat- 
tle, 25;  and  evolutionary 
struggle  for  survival,  26; 
and  mutual  aid,  26;  man's 
progress  toward,  28;  and 
the  problem  of  peace,  29; 
of  security,  30;  of  idealism, 
32;  basis  of,  in  idealism, 
34;  appeal  of,  to-day,  35; 
presumption  in  favour  of, 
40;  term  a  misnomer, 
114;  denned  and  inter- 
preted, 115-123,  139;  based 
on  "resist  not  evil,"  115; 
in  relation  to  animals,  116; 
can  be  applied  only  to  hu- 
man beings,  117;  not  a 
doctrine  of  surrender  or 


cowardice,  119-122,  138, 
225;  a  positive  doctrine, 
123,  225;  and  passive  re- 
sistance, 124-128;  reason 
and  speech  as  agents  of, 
128-135;  love  as  the  crown 
of,  135-138;  a  doctrine  of 
aggressive  militancy,  139, 
225;  exemplars  of,  Lao-tse, 
143-150;  Buddha,  150-155, 
Isaiah,  155-161;  Jesus, 
161-172;  Stephen,  177; 
Paul,  177-179;  early  Chris- 
tians, 179-183;  Medieval 
sects;  183-191;  St.  Francis, 
191-193;  Erasmus,  196; 
Quakers,  197-200;  Emer- 
son, 201-203;  Garrison, 
203;  Whittier,  204;  social- 
ists, 205;  Tolstoi,  206; 
Bahaists,  247-248;  practic- 
ability of,  demonstrated, 
217-258;  higher  expediency 
of,  211-216;  success  of,  in 
domestic  relations,  218;  in 
care  and  training  of  chil- 
dren, 218;  in  industrial  re- 
lations, 219;  in  prison  re- 
form, 219;  in  government, 
219;  in  personal  relations, 
229;  in  defence  of  prop- 
erty, 231-238;  in  defence 
of  life,  228,  236,  238-248; 
in  defence  of  liberty,  249- 
252;  in  international  rela- 
tions, 253-255,  256-258; 
not  always  successful,  but 
more  so  than  force,  222; 
as  road  to  peace,  227,  230, 
253;  as  means  of  security, 
255,  290;  as  fulfilment  of 
national  idealism,  256; 
practicability  of,  not  acci- 
dental, 258;  an  application 
of  two  principles,  like 
produces  like,  and  spirit 
is  superior  to  flesh,  259- 
260;  necessary  limitations 


364 


INDEX 


of,  261-262   (note);   Amer- 
ica defended   by,  290;   and 
patriotism,  291 ;   and  inter- 
nationalism, 292 
North,  Lord,  53,  272 
Noyes,    Alfred,   quoted,   326 

O 

Gates,  Titus,  323 

Ohio,  336 

Oliver,      Andrew,      house      of, 

burned,  49 
Oppression,    force   described   as 

justified    against,    45 
Oregon,    prison    system   in,   89, 

219 

Osborne,    Thomas    Mott,    88 
Ostrogoths,  290 


Pacifism  (see  also  Non-Resist- 
ance, Love,  etc.),  prob- 
lem of,  33;  folly  of,  an- 
swered, 33;  idealistic  basis 
of,  34;  acceptance  of,  by 
socialists,  95 ;  non-resist- 
ance -the  extreme  form  of, 
114;  and  early  Christians, 
182 

Paine,   Thomas,   133 

Panama  Canal,  334 

Pankhurst,  Mrs.,  53;  speech  de- 
fending use  of  force,  49; 
quoted,  51,  52 

Parker,  Theodore,  204;  quoted, 
276 

Passive  Resistance,  124-127 ; 
effectiveness  of,  127-128 

Passive  Resistance  Movement, 
in  England,  126,  128 

Patriotism,  true  and  false,  291; 
and  internationalism,  291 

Paul,  St.,  204;  quoted,  8,  10, 
40,  153  (note),  179,  226, 
231,  259;  on  non-resistance, 
123,  139;  a  non-resistant, 
177-179 


Peace,  international,  progress 
toward,  7;  problem  of,  in 
light  of  the  Great  War,  10; 
hope  of,  before  the  War, 
11 ;  and  the  doctrine  of 
force,  22;  and  the  doctrine 
of  non-resistance,  29;  pre- 
paredness for,  29;  kinds  of, 
30;  failure  of  force  to 
maintain,  98,  253;  praised 
by  Lao-tse,  149;  secured 
and  maintained  by  disarm- 
ament in  case  of  Canada 
and  U.  S.,  253-254;  is  it  de- 
sirable, 297-326;  Kant  on, 
298;  not  desired  by  all,  299; 
depicted  as  leading  to  de- 
generacy, 310;  if  not  now 
desirable,  can  be  made  so, 
325;  first  condition  of  re- 
deeming, the  abolition  of 
war,  325 

Pekah,  king  of  Israel,   156-158 

Penn,  William,  239;  quoted, 
239,  240 

Pennsylvania,  settled  by  Quak- 
ers, 239;  story  of,  239-241 

Pericles,   315 

Persia,  255 

Persecutions,  of  early  Chris- 
tians, 58;  justified  by 
Aurelius,  60-62 ;  of  Cathari, 
188;  of  Waldenses,  189;  of 
Moravians,  191 ;  of  Armeni- 
ans, 245;  of  Bahaists,  247; 
compared  with  war,  269, 
283 

Peter,  St.,  204;  rebuked  by 
Jesus,  105,  168 

Peter  the   Great,   103 

Philadelphia,   338 

Philip,  of  Macedo.1,  107 

Philippine   Islands,   334 

Phillips,  Wendell,  137,  204 

Phoenicia,    106 

Pichee;ru,    131 

Pilate",  Pontius,  127,  128,  215 

Plague,  the  Great,  274 


INDEX 


365 


Plato,  283 

Pletchanoff,  George,  quoted,  38 

Poland,  63,  102,  279 

Police,  civic,  262;  international, 
262 

Polycarp,  59 

Pomphret,  John,  non-resistant, 
238 

Portugal,  15 

Preparedness,  illusion  as  guar- 
antee of  security,  14;  fail- 
ure to  maintain  peace  in 
Europe,  29,  100;  doctrine 
of,  as  related  to  peace,  98; 
failure  throughout  all  his- 
tory as  means  of  main- 
taining peace,  98;  and  the 
Great  War,  100;  a  supersti- 
tion, inherited  from  bar- 
barism, 101;  J.  Q.  Adams 
on,  102;  and  America,  332- 
342;  urged  as  result  of 
Great  War,  331;  forces  be- 
hind, fear,  332,  interna- 
tional distrust,  333,  mater- 
ialism, 334;  opposition  to, 
based  on  confidence  in  na- 
tural security,  337,  trust  in 
power  of  goodwill,  339, 
spiritual  idealism,  341-345; 
the  road  to  death  for  Amer- 
ica, 348 

Prisons,  failure  of  force  in  ad- 
ministration of,  87;  new 
methods  based  on  goodwill, 
88;  denounced  by  Lao-tse, 
149 

Protestantism,  at  first  non-re- 
sistant, 194;  later  corrup- 
tion of,  194-196 

Protestants,  Irish,  243 

Prussia,  East,  279 


Q 


Quakers,  the,  197,  208,  252,  258; 
exemplars  of  non-resist- 
ance, 197-200;  in  the  Civil 


War,  200;  experience  of,  as 
proof  of  practicability  of 
non-resistance,  238-244;  in 
Pennsylvania,  239;  in  Ire- 
land, 243;  Chinese  con- 
trasted with,  257 

R 

Radical  Club,  the,  201 

Rainsford,  Dr.  William,  312 

Ramsay,  Dr.,  non-resistant,  231 

Ranke,    108 

Rauschenbusch,  Walter,  quoted 
on  use  of  force,  45 

Reason,  in  non-resistance,  128- 
133;  effectiveness  of,  133- 
135 

Reformation,  the  Protestant, 
194,  274;  early  non-resist- 
ant character  of,  194 

Reichstag,  the  German,  249 

Reign  of  Terror,  274 

Renan,  Ernest,  quoted  on 
Isaiah^  161;  on  Jesus,  167 

"  Resist  not  Evil,"  its  meaning, 
115-123;  relation  to  the 
Mosaic  code,  121;  Tolstoi 
on,  122 

Revolt,  the  Peasants',  195,  196 

Revolution,  the  American  (see 
War) 

Revolution,  the  French,  92,  98, 
130 

Rezin,  king  of  Syria,  156,  158 

Rheims,  cathedral  of,  destroyed, 
280 

Roberts,  Lord,  11,  164 

Robespierre,    131 

Rodin,  290 

Rolland,   Remain,  163 

Roman  Empire,  3,  99,  103, 
255,  289,  290;  contribution 
to  civilization,  107;  and  the 
early  Christians,  179;  cause 
of  fall  of,  281 ;  over-run  by 
barbarians,  289 

Romans,  Paul's  epistle,  quoted, 
179 


366 


INDEX 


Rome,  capture  of,  by  Brennus, 
125-127;  Catiline's  con- 
spiracy against,  129;  sym- 
bol of  law,  341,  345 

Roosevelt,  Theodore,  23,  117; 
defence  of  war  by,  300,  311 

Roundheads,  197,  271,  272 

Rousseau,   131 

Ruskin,  John,  22,  106,  310,  314, 
319;  quoted  in  defence  of 
war,  303-306 

Russell,  Bertrand,  quoted  on 
non-resistance,  261-262 

(note) 

Russia,  3,  15,  63,  100,  104,  122, 
213,  216,  255,  272,  288,  290, 
329,  340 


Sacrifice,  law  of,  32 

St.  Louis,  336 

Samaria,  fall  of,  107,  156 

Samuel,   I   and   II,  351 

San    Francisco,    336 

Sargon,    king    of    Assyria,    159 

Savonarola,  61;  faith  of,  214 

Scharnhorst,  108 

Schelling,  108 

Schleiermacher,  108 

Schmidt,   Nathaniel,   167 

Schubert,   108 

Schurz,  Carl,  quoted  on  national 
idealism,  341 

Scipio,  107 

Scott,  Gen.  Hugh  L.,  228 

Scott,  Capt.  R.  F.,  307,  309, 
319,  323 

Scott,   Sir   Walter,   quoted,   291 

Sea  Power,  England's,  66 

Security,  problem  of,  in  light 
of  the  Great  War,  13; 
faith  in,  before  the  War, 
14;  and  the  doctrine  of 
force,  23;  and  the  doctrine 
of  non-resistance,  30;  fail- 
ure of  force  to  maintain, 
102;  success  of  non-resist- 


ance   in    maintaining,   255- 
257 

Sellars,  Richard,  an  heroic 
Quaker,  198 

Sennacherib,  king  of  Assyria, 
107,  159 

Serbia,  15,  63,  279,  333 

Sermon  on  the  Mount,  quoted, 
32,  115,  151 

Sharpe,   Archbishop,  237 

Shaw,   Robert  Gould,  271 

Shelley,  P.  B.,  quoted,  93 

Sidon,  106 

Sing  Sing  Prison,  88 

Slavery,  compared  with  war, 
269,  283 

Socialism,  7;  its  repudiation  of 
violence,  95,  133;  failure 
of,  to  stop  the  Great  War, 
128 

Socialists,  205,  252;  as  non-re- 
sistants, 205-206,  249 ;  prac- 
ticability of  non-resistance 
proved  by,  249-252;  strug- 
gle of,  against  Bismarck, 
249 

Socrates,  61,  259 

Sorel,  George,  205 

South  African  Republic,  part 
of,  in  Great  War,  91 

Spain,  104,  225,  274,  278 

Sparta,  99,  103;  contribution  of, 
to  civilization,  107 

Speed,  Joshua,  friend  of  Lin- 
coln, 276 

Spencer,    Herbert,    80,    109 

Stamp  Act,  violence  caused  by, 
49 

Stein,  108 

Steinmetz,  309 

Stephen,  St.,   137,   177 

Stone,  Lucy,  215 

Strauss,  108 

Struggle  for  life  of  others,  in 
evolution,  26,  80 

Struggle  for  survival,  in  evolu- 
tion, relation  to  doctrine 
of  force,  19;  law  of,  super- 


INDEX 


367 


seded  by  law  of  sacrifice, 
32;  a  law  of  nature,  73; 
real  character  of,  81 ;  man's 
part  in,  81 

Usher,  Prof.  Roland  G.,  quoted 
preparedness,  101 ;  on  the 
Quakers  in  Pennsylvania, 
240;  on  laws  of  non-resist- 
ance, 258;  on  America's 
destiny,  328 

Sumter,  Fort,   61,  265 

Supper,   Last,   168 

Supreme  Court,  the  U.  S.,  219 

Susquehannas    (see  Indians) 

Swinburne,   A.   C.,  quoted,   135 

Swiss   Guards,  89 

Switzerland,  313 


Tacitus,  10,  30 

Tao-ism,  religion  of  Lao-tse, 
144,  150 

Tauler,  108 

Tea  Party,  the  Boston,  49 

Temple,  the  cleansing  of,  169 

Tennyson,   Alfred,   quoted,  277 

Tertullian,  quoted  on  non-resist- 
ance, 181 

Thucydides,   10 

Tiglath  Pileser,   158,  159 

Times,  the  London,  163,  213 

Titanic,   the,   274 

Tolstoi,  Leo,  216,  290;  quoted, 
34,  122,  210;  on  evil  of  war, 
213;  on  "resist  not  evil," 
122;  a  non-resistant,  206; 
on  expediency  vs.  duty,  212 

Torquemada,  283 

Transcendentalism,  201;  as  a 
non-resistant  movement, 
201 

Treitschke,  164,  309,  348 

Tripoli,   Italian  war   in,   15 

Truce  of  God,  10 

Trudeau,  Dr.,  318 

Tuckerman,   Joseph,  21 

Turkey,     90;     persecutions     of 


Armenians  in,  245 ;  persecu- 
tions of  Bahaists  in,  246 
Tyre,  106,  135 


U 


Ulster,  and  the  Home  Rule  Bill, 
126 

Unitarianism,  201 

United  States  of  America  (see 
America) 

United  States   of  Europe,  297 

Usher,  Prof.  Roland  P.,  quoted 
on  impregnability  of  Amer- 
ica, 338 


Vaillant,   August,  terrorist,  38 

Valjean,  Jean,  136 

Venice,  in  days  of  the  Doges, 

109 

Violence  (see  Force) 
Virgil,  71,  289 
Virginia,  colony  of,  239,  242 
Visigoths,  290 
Voltaire,     12,     190;     and     the 

French      Revolution,     131 ; 

Morley's       characterization 

of,  131 

W 

Waldenses,  non-resistants,  189, 
194 

Waldo,  Peter,  189 

Wallace,  A.  R.,  on  evolution, 
109 

War  (see  Force,  non-Resistance, 
etc.),  153,  216,  265,  299, 
331;  universal,  3;  described 
by  militarists  as  good,  22, 
301-311;  part  in  destroying 
civilization,  102,  106;  de- 
nounced by  Lao-tse,  149, 
by  Isaiah,  156-160,  by 
Tertullian,  181,  by  Lactan- 
tius,  181,  by  Justin,  183,  by 
Moravians,  191 ;  forbidden 


368 


INDEX 


by  St.  Francis,  193;  atti- 
tude of  Erasmus  toward, 
196;  Quakers  refuse  to  par- 
ticipate in,  197-200;  Emer- 
son's change  of  attitude 
toward,  201-203;  Garrison's 
repudiation  of,  203;  Tol- 
stoi's denunciation  of,  206; 
is  it  ever  justifiable,  265— 
294;  on  defensive  to-day  as 
never  before,  266;  denounced 
on  general  principles,  266, 
but  still  justified  in  each 
particular  instance,  267; 
compared  with  slavery  and 
persecution,  269,  283;  not 
justified  by  virtues  engen- 
dered by,  270,  nor  by  mo- 
tives behind,  271,  nor  by 
goods  achieved  by,  273,  318; 
life  the  one  test  of,  275-277; 
the  antithesis  of  life,  phys- 
ical, 278,  cultural,  279, 
spiritual,  280,  313-315;  the 
destroyer  of  civilizations, 
281;  never  justifiable,  282- 
284,  293;  not  even  on  behalf 
of  principle,  285 ;  nor  in  de- 
fence of  national  life,  288; 
like  practice  of  human  sac- 
rifice, 283;  real  character 
of  to-day,  286;  spiritual, 
289-291;  defence  of  Amer- 
ica without,  290;  always  a 
crime,  293;  defended  by 
Aristotle,  301,  by  Ruskin, 
303,  by  Cramb,  306;  as  an 
agent  of  moral  redemption, 
31 1 ;  fallacies  of  this  de- 
fence of,  312-324;  evils  of, 
basic,  312-315;  goods  of, 
by-products,  316-319;  goods 
of,  can  be  obtained  in  other 
ways,  321-323;  new  for  old, 
324;  abolition  of,  325 
War,  the  Great,  12,  15,  172, 
205,  246,  265,  331 ;  universal 
character  of,  3;  possible 


destruction  of  Europe, 
by,  4;  fundamental  prob- 
lem involved  in,  5,  9,  19;  a 
reversion  to  first  moral 
principles,  8,  18;  problems 
precipitated  by,  10,  13,  16; 
interpreted  as  defensive  by 
all  combatants,  63;  proves 
fallacies  of  force,  73,  100; 
lesson  of,  on  question  of 
preparedness,  100;  on  ques- 
tion of  national  security, 
102;  might  have  been  pre- 
vented by  Christians  and 
socialists,  128;  "a  found- 
ling," 266;  justified  by 
most  Americans,  272;  not  a 
war  for  principle,  286; 
scenes  attending  outbreak 
of,  313;  "the  last  war," 
297;  lessons  for  Amer- 
ica, 331 

Wars,  the   American   Civil,  92, 
200,  201,  202,  271,  272,  274, 
281,  299;  not  inevitable,  288 
the   American   Revolutionary, 
54,  56,  90,  92,  133,  271,  272, 
274,  285,  298,  338;  illustra- 
tion of  use  of  force  against 
oppression,  47;   as  the  last 
resort,  48;  logic  of,  54;  un- 
necessary, 287 
the  Austrian  of  1866,  99 
the   Boer,   100 
the  Crimean,  99 
the  Danish  of  1864,  99 
the  English  Civil,  271 
the   Franco-Prussian,  99,  315 
the  French  and  Indian,  47 
the  Italian,  of  Liberation,  99 
the  Napoleonic,  108 
the  Persian,  109 
the    Russio-Japanese,   100 
the  Russio-Turkish,  99 
the  Spanish-American,  99 
the  Thirty  Years,  4,  315 
the   Turko-Grecian,    100 
Washington,  George,  quoted  on 


INDEX  369 

preparedness,   98  Whittier,  J.  G.,  quoted,  208;  a 
Wells,  H.  G.,  quoted  on  modern  non-resistant,  204;  on  John 

warfare,  5;  on  possible  col-  Brown,  204 

lapse    of    civilization,    164,  Wilson,  Woodrow,  265 

282,  297  Wolf,  108 

Whitlock,  Brand,  261    (note)  Wollstonecraft,  Mary,  215 

Whitman,  Walt,  quoted  on  war,  Woman  taken  in  adultery,  236 

284  Wycliffe,  John,  190,  191 


A    000  7541362 


